The Connection between Geopolitics and Chaos

 

The Connection between Geopolitics and Chaos

by Claudiu Oteleanu

    This essay attempts to put this framework down in black and white. Its thesis is that there is a growing gap between the growth of the world's connectivity – especially economic connectivity – and the absence of a political framework to govern this greater power amassed by interconnected societies. 

This is dangerous. 

The historical parallel is the old geopolitical game charted out by Spengler and others, and the 100-year period – the Long Peace – that was characterized by the recognition of American exceptionalism in the context of a shared set of liberal universalism. 

The Long Peace is over. The rules no longer apply. 

Can we reestablish a new set of rules, a new geopolitical game? 

In order to think about that, we need to answer what exactly that Long Peace was. We need to answer why that peace is characterized in economic terms but not in geopolitical terms. 

What is the significance of this gap? 

What is the nature of the present geopolitical affront? 

What role can economic connectivity play in a new geopolitical system?

There is a moment of disquiet when writing an autobiography. Accounts are typically presented based on an understanding of the past that developed over time. 

As Hegel famously reminds us, historical reflection is easier than actual historical investigation. In fact, when the time came to consult contemporaneous notes, I realized two things. 

First, I had done no such thing in all the events I cover in these pages. 

There had never been time for such a leisurely exercise. 

Second, while the facts of the story that follow can all be verified from these sources, the real driver of the events considered is an analytical framework that I took to be the relevant – indeed, the only – lens through which to view these critical years in Iraq.

Chaos is a style of government. 

If this style is not present, at least one of the other three will be. 

These other three states are 1) chaotic/feudal, 2) snakepit, and 3) despotic. 

These styles have become so adjusted to their living that they were called successful by Sir Lipton. They all operate using the same organizational style. 

So, Sir Lipton, unlike Hobbes, sincerely believed there was successful disagreement. However, the starting point for this type of organization is chaos. 

The time it takes to implement a policy, or the number of officials involved in making a decision, and the accuracy of the division of its budget is why you can see chaotic government by bureaucrats.

Keeping in mind the definition of chaos given by James Gleick in the book called "Chaos" and developing a notation for types of states beginning with the lower, more chaotic types, in order to build a model of the minimum characteristics of these types, we have the following.

This first section will describe how I understand geopolitics and chaos, as well as defining a successful or unsuccessful state. 

I recognize that disclosures of transparency related to a government make it easier to maintain or achieve a strong position, but this type of government is not a requirement. Transparency is of the most help in achieving individual goals when the government has support and decision-making from its people.