The most powerful political idea of our time

"The European imperial powers withdrew from their colonies after World War II not because their armies were militarily defeated but because their armies could not secure the political objectives of maintaining imperial rule and legitimacy.
At play is a fundamental issue of politics. In the post-World War II era, after generations or centuries of colonial rule, the forces of nationalism and self-determination became irresistible in the developing countries. The idea that human dignity requires freedom from foreign occupation has become the most powerful political idea of our time. All of this was immeasurably strengthened by the spread of literacy, mass communications, and a modicum of economic development. Yet even as the United States has proclaimed its fundamental commitment to human freedom, it has disregarded its own anticolonial history and the basic facts of modern history. Thus, the United States substituted for France in Vietnam's struggle for independence, and could not understand that the Vietnamese were fighting a war of national liberation. The United States replaced Britain as the chief outside meddler in the Middle East oil states - Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia - but could not understand that every U.S. manipulation of local Middle East politics ignited powerful anticolonial antibodies.
President Bush imagines that the United States has liberated Iraq, but to the Iraqis the United States is yet one more occupying power, indeed one that has partnered with Britain, Iraq's original imperial power. Moreover, the United States has not tried to understand the roots of Arab views of Israel as a colonial imposition. While compromise is the only productive approach for both parties to the conflict, the Arab view reflects Arab nationalism and anticolonialism. For these reasons, military adventures such as the Iraq War are bound to fail [...]."

Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth, Economics for a crowded planet, chapter "Rethinking foreign policy".

Water stress and conflict in Africa

A plausible deep root for Africa's problems (see also this post):

"A notable scientific contribution in establishing [the] link [between rising water stress and conflict] was made by Edward Miguel and his colleagues, who found that "drops in rainfall [in Africa] are associated with significantly more conflict...
There is strong evidence that better rainfall makes conflict much less likely in Africa."* The key link seems to be that a decline in rainfall causes the economy to shrink, presumably through the adverse effects on harvests and food supply, and this in turn triggers conflict. What is important is that when the authors compared the explanatory power of rainfall with political variables (such as democracy, ethnic cleavages, religious divisions, colonial heritage) in accounting for the location, and timing of conflicts in Africa, the rainfall variable was more important than the political variables. The research team concluded as follows: "The most obvious reading of these findings is that economic factors trump all others in causing African civil conflicts, and that institutional and political characteristics have much less of an impact."**"

* Edward Miguel, Shanker Satyanath, and Ernest Sergent, "Economic Shocks and Civil Conflict: An Instrumental Variables Approach", Journal of Political Economy 112, no. 4 (2004), pp. 725-753.
** Edward Miguel, "Poverty and Violence", in Lael Brainard and Derek Chollet, eds., Too Poor for Peace? Global Poverty, Conflict and Security in the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 2007), p. 55.

Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth, Economics for a crowded planet, chapter "Securing our water needs".

This is a very worrying relationship, as water stress is forecasted to increase in many places on Earth, as global warming intensifies ! As Jeffrey Sachs adds:

"Water scarcity is, so far, mainly responsible for conflicts within countries rather than between them, yet cross-border confrontations will also become more likely to arise as water stress becomes more extreme."

Peace is the way of solving problems

A beautiful speech by John F. Kennedy, still vividly of actuality today :

"Too many of us think [that peace] is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade ; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and goodwill of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams, but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more pratical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions - on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace ; no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process - a way of solving problems.
So, let us not be blind of our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

John F. Kennedy, Peace Address at American University, June 1963, when nuclear war was threatening to explode after the failed CIA-led invasion of Cuba in 1961, and the subsequent positioning of nuclear weapons in Cuba by the Soviet Union in October 1962 (cited by Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth, Economics for a crowded planet, chapter "Common challenges, common wealth").

The threat of fanaticism

After talking about the surprise that World War I was to the European people that believed war was passé because of the intricate economic relationships between European countries, Jeffrey Sachs continues with:

"It may seem impossible to conceive of such a cataclysm today, yet the widening arc of war and vituperation, often pitting U.S. foreign policy against global public opinion, reminds us daily of a growing threat to global peace. Today's worry is not only the violence itself but also the messianic fervor with which various combatants are waging their battles. President George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, and the suicide bombers all claim God's guidance as they launch their attacks against their foes. The world edges closer to catastrophe. In future years the rising power of China and India could further wound U.S. pride and self-confidence, and further ratchet up global tensions."

Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth, Economics for a crowded planet, chapter "Common challenges, common wealth".

Bombe atomique

"Lorsque j'appris que la ville de Hiroshima avait été anéantie par une bombe atomique, je ne laissai paraître aucune émotion. Je me dis tout simplement: « L'humanité court à son suicide si le monde n'adopte pas la non-violence. »"

Mohandas Gandhi, Tous les hommes sont frères, chapitre "En guise d'autobiographie".

Le monde n'a pas (encore?) adopté la non-violence, et les armes nucléaires n'ont pas arrêté de proliferer. La mise en garde de Gandhi est donc d'autant plus d'actualité!

Réfugiés climatiques

Voici à mon avis l'une des conséquences les plus graves du changement climatique:

"Quand une niche écologique se modifie pour des raisons climatiques, on assiste à ce que l'on appelle la dispersion des espèces qui y vivent pour s'adapter aux nouvelles conditions. Cela s'applique aussi aux hommes. En 2003, le rapport du GIEC* jette un pavé dans la marre: 200 millions de personnes seront déplacées d'ici à 2050 à cause du réchauffement climatique. Ce sont les réfugiés climatiques. Cette estimation, abondamment relayée par la presse, met en évidence les conséquences humaines des changements climatiques dans nos sociétés qui ne sont absolument pas préparées à encaisser de telles ondes de choc. Devant l'ampleur des problèmes annoncés - 200 millions de personnes ce n'est pas rien, essentiellement au Sud - et dans un contexte de raréfaction des ressources, la prise de conscience collective semble progresser, mais à petits pas...
Si les prévisions du GIEC se réalisent, déjà en moins de 40 ans nous devrons gérer des déplacements de populations plus importants que lors de la colonisation des Amériques du XVI^e au XVIII^e siècle. Avec une différence notable: à l'époque l'Amérique offrait d'immenses territoires vides. La Terre d'aujourd'hui est surpeuplée, particulièrement au Sud où la croissance démograpique continue de battre son plein.
Il faut aussi noter que les zones les plus à risques, deltas des fleuves et plaines côtières, du fait de la montée des océans, sont parmi les zones les plus peuplées sur Terre, car c'est là, les terres étant les plus productives, que l'Homme s'est installé en premier.
Les stratégies que développent tous les pays riches pour garder les réfugiés et les immigrants à l'extérieur de leurs frontières, risquent de ne pas peser lourd face au caractère inéluctable et massif des migrations à venir (difficile de convaincre quelqu'un de rester chez lui quand sa survie est en cause...). A regarder les difficultés actuelles de l'Espagne et de l'Italie, aux avant-postes géographiques de l'Europe, à contenir des flux, pourtant encore bien limités, on peut légitimement se demander si nous aurons la capacité de gérer, humainement, cette émigration forcée de populations et de choisir notre immigration. Pour autant, contrairement aux idées reçues, ce sont les pays pauvres qui seront les premiers en ligne et qui supportent déjà l'essentiel de ces afflux massifs de réfugiés. Ces dix dernières années, 72% des demandeurs d'asile ont été accueillis dans des pays du Sud. Dans ces conditions, il serait naïf de croire que cette situation pourra perdurer sans conflits au sein même de ces Etats comme au plan international."

Geneviève Ferone, 2030, le krach écologique, chapitre "Démographie, croissance et environnement".

* Groupe Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat.

Ceci montre bien la naïveté du concept d'immigration "choisie", cher à notre Président Nicolas Sarkozy, qui est un luxe que nous ne pourrons pas nous offrir pendant très longtemps encore sans conflits. Sans parler du fait que je trouve ce concept abominable...

Ecological emergency (2)

"This is the ecological perspective of the industrial age; we cannot hold onto it indefinitely, in fact, industrialism itself may not last for even one more human lifetime. At present, to compensate for the limitations placed on production by the carrying capacity of the environment, we are speeding up the rate at which we fish, farm, deforest, and extract. In other words, rather than facing the creative challenges posed by ecosystem limits, we are temporarily bypassing the problem by harvesting resources more rapidly, by driftnetting, mechanical deforestation, and factory farming. Science and common sense both dictate that such extravagance must eventually lead to disaster. It not only borrows from the future, thus threatening human societies in the long term, but it also puts intense pressure on other species in these ecological niches which depend on the same resources. As a consequence, habitats are destroyed, species become extinct, and in the process, the productive health of the environment is compromised and decreased.
Human populations are already being severely affected by damage to the environment due to depletion and degradation of resources. For decades, scientists and experts such as Robert Heilbroner, Paul Ehrlich, and Jessica Tuchman Matthews have predicted that resource shortages would engender widespread social discord, but there were no studies to support or refute those views. Recently, however, a team of thirty researchers, assembled under the auspices of the University of Toronto and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, formed the Project on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict. This group examined a number of societies and countries where resource shortages were already occurring, and their findings were disturbing: «Scarcities of renewable resources are already contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of the developing world. These conflicts may foreshadow a surge of similar violence in coming decades, particularly in poor countries where shortages of water, forests and, especially, fertile land, coupled with rapidly expanding populations, already cause great hardship.» Land shortages in Bangladesh, for example, have led to mass migrations to India involving as many as 15 million people. These migrations have in turn led to fierce ethnic clashes. To those who discount such theories by arguing that resource conflicts have been an enduring element of human history, the authors warn: «We maintain ... that renewable-resource scarcities of the next 50 years will probably occur with a speed, complexity and magnitude unprecedented in history. Entire countries can now be deforested in a few decades, most of a region's topsoil can disappear in a generation, and acute ozone depletion may take place in as few as 20 years.»"

Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce. A Declaration of Sustainability.
(Chapter "The death of birth").

It is worth noting that the Project on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict was taking place in 1990-1993, just after the Montreal Protocol, which regulated the emissions of ozone-depleting substances worldwide, entered into force (on January 1, 1989). Since then, the atmospheric concentrations of the most important ozone-depleting substances have either leveled off or decreased, resulting in a stabilization of the global average amount of ozone depletion, and the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol (according to the wikipedia article on ozone depletion).
This is a good example when proper international coordination and regulation can solve a problem generated by human activities but detected and warned-against by science, and finally taken care of by public and political will.
Why would we not be able to do the same for the green-house gases and the environmental degradation our economy is inflicting to our world ?
Are the above-mentioned threats perceived as more benign than the skin cancers associated with the ozone hole ? That would be a very short-term perception !

Un autre mode

"«Le modèle de développement suivi par tous les pays jusqu'à aujourd'hui est fondamentalement non durable, au-delà des arguties qui entourent le concept de développement durable. Ce développement fait en effet largement appel à la disposition d'une énergie bon marché, essentiellement tirée des combustibles fossiles. On sait bien que la quantité disponible à des coûts raisonnables est finie et ne permettra pas le développement prévisible de tous les pays de la planète pendant beaucoup plus d'un siècle. Le changement climatique induit par l'émisssion dans l'atmosphère du gaz carbonique résultant de la combustion des ressources fossiles conduit à envisager sérieusement des échéances beaucoup plus proches: c'est un problème dont l'importance à l'échelle de quelques decennies est largement admise.» Ces lignes ne sont pas d'un gauchiste irresponsable. Elles sont signées par l'un des experts français du très officiel Groupe d'experts intergouvernementaux sur l'évolution du climat (Giec), mis en place par l'Organisation météorologique mondiale et le programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement: Michel Petit, membre du Conseil général des technologies de l'information, qui fut longtemps le directeur de la recherche de l'École polytechnique.
Dès lors, il faut que la modernité choisisse ce qui lui est le plus essentiel: son exigence éthique d'égalité, qui débouche sur des principes d'universalisation, ou bien le mode de développement qu'elle s'est donné. On ne peut à la fois vouloir conserver son morceau de gâteau et le manger. Ou bien le monde actuellement développé s'isole, ce qui voudra dire de plus en plus qu'il se protège par des boucliers de toutes sortes contre les agressions que le ressentiment des laissés-pour-compte concevra chaque fois plus cruelles et plus abominables; ou bien s'invente un autre mode de rapport au monde, à la nature, aux choses et aux êtres, qui aura la propriété de pouvoir être universalisé à l'échelle de l'Humanité."

Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Pour un catastrophisme éclairé. Quand l'impossible est certain, cité par Bernard Maris dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "Économie et écologie ou comment «j'ai tué Maman»".

De l'absurdité des guerres de religions

"Le contraste est frappant [...] quand des nations en guerre affirment l'une et l'autre avoir pour elles un Dieu qui se trouve ainsi être le dieu national du paganisme, alors que le Dieu dont elles s'imaginent parler est un Dieu commun à tous les hommes, dont la seule vision par tous serait l'abolition immédiate de la guerre."

Henri Bergson, "Les Deux Sources de la morale et de la religion", cité dans Philosophie Magazine, n. 13 (octobre 2007).

Georges Bush ferait bien de lire Bergson !...

Mass murder for a good cause

"My bias is this: I want my readers to think twice about our traditional heroes, to reexamine what we cherish (technical competence) and what we ignore (human consequences). I want them to think about how easily we accept conquest and murder because it furthers "progress". Mass murder for "a good cause" is one of the sicknesses of our time. There were those who defended Stalin's murders by saying, "Well, he made Russia a major power." As we have seen, there were those who justified the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying "We had to win the war."

(Howard Zinn, "Passionate Declarations", chapter "The use and abuse of History").

Can there be such a thing as "just" wars ?

Against the claim that there can be just wars, that "it is not sweet to die for one's country. It is bitter. But it can be noble." (Noel Annan, New York Review of Books, Sept. 28, 1989), Howard Zinn asks (Passionate Declarations, footnote 82 of Chapter "Just and unjust war"):
"What makes you so sure that to die in war is to die for one's country, rather than for national aggrandizement, political power, economic greed, and fanaticism ?"
Then he ends this chapter with what he thinks is the only acceptable solution, nonviolent action:
"It is the great challenge of our time: how to achieve justice, with struggle, but without war."

Non-violent direct action !

OK, let's start getting back in my citations note-book.
This one is from Howard Zinn (Passionate Declarations):

"It is sad to see how, in so many countries, citizens have been led to war by the argument that it is necessary because there are tyrannies abroad, evil rulers, murderous juntas. But to make war is not to destroy the tyrants; it is to kill their subjects, their pawns, their conscripted soldiers, their subjugated civilians [...]
Freedom and justice, which so often have been the excuses for violence, are still our goals. But the means for achieving them must change, because violence, however tempting in the quickness of its action, undermines those goals immediately, and also in the long run. The means for achieving social change must match, morally, the ends."

So, what can we do ? The answer is: non-violent direct action !

"A determined population can not only force a domestic ruler to flee the country, but can make a would-be occupier retreat, by the use of a formidable arsenal of tactics: boycotts and demonstrations, occupations and sit-ins, sit-down strikes and general strikes, obstruction and sabotage, refusal to pay taxes, rent strikes, refusal to cooperate, refusal to obey curfew orders or gag orders, refusal to pay fines, fasts and pray-ins, draft resistance, and civil disobedience of various kinds [...]
Non-violent direct action is inextricably related to democracy. Violence to the point of terrorism is the desperate tactic of tiny groups who are incapable of building a mass base of popular support."