---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM Subject: Fwd: <nettime> World at War? Counter-revolution and Unbalanced Multipolarism To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Brian finishes his answer with the question : *" What is our answer to multipolar chaos? What is our life project? "* Forwarded conversation Subject: <nettime> World at War? Counter-revolution and Unbalanced Multipolarism ------------------------ From: *Alex Foti* <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM To: [email protected] dear 'timers, we are living in a William Gibson novel and it ain't pretty: hypermediatization, random cruelty, aberrant irrationality, political and ecological disintegration seem to rule the world. yet there is a simple hobbesian logic to this all - i propose a simple model to interpret the horrific events of 2014 based on two hypotheses - one that the counter-revolution is trying to gain the upper hand in the Middle East and elsewhere after the revolutionary wave of 2011 (let's call it the thermidorian hypothesis, incarnated by say Sisi and Netanyahu) and two that we have entered a geopolitical era based on a multipolar system which is unbalanced, i.e. where regional powers vie for influence and dominance in the various areas of the world and sectors of the global economy, augmenting the risk of war. Since the G20 was first convened in April 2009 to address the macroeconomic imbalances created by the financial crisis, it's clear that the West is no longer in control of the world, and emergent powers and sovereign funds increasingly call the shots. The reckless bid to global hegemony launched by bushism in Iraq and Afghanistan has failed miserably and marked an end to the post-cold-war world order of unipolar (and often unilateral) American power, the "hyperpuissance" as the French called it, of the 90s and 00s. The Arab Spring and its aftermath has further exposed the political and military weakness of the US and its EU allies. The intervention of the west was crucial only in Libya, and it was initiated by the French and only reluctantly Obama joined. Unfortunately, the overthrow and execution of Qaddafi (justified in my eyes) has not led to some rough kind of democracy but to civil war and a failed state in the former Italian colony. Only in Tunisia, the homeland of the revolution, there is no attempt to return to the status quo ante, as an uneasy dynamic has set in opposing the muslim majority in government and the secular urban young minorities who did the revolution, and especially women fighting for their rights against clerical interference. It was the same of dynamic (let's call it the muslim brothers vs black bloc hooligans for theatric effect) that was at work during Morsi's short democratic tenure, interrupted by the military coup at behest of Saudi Arabia, the true evil power of the region, possibly even more than Assad's murderous regime, in the light of the fact that it has spawned ISIS, the nightmare finally come true: a revolutionary army of ideological and sectarian fanatics loaded with weapons and cash, bent on establishing the Sunni Caliphate across Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, and the whole Ummah. This is not the Al Qaeda beheaded by Obama, it's an open call to jihadists across the world to conquer muslim land unjustly apportioned by European powers after Versailles and slaughter the infidels, starting with Kurdish and especially Shia people, a confession for centuries dominated by Sunni despotism that is turning the tables of history favoring the rise of Iran and the power it built after the 1979 revolution, decidedly the year that the 21st century started (the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Carter roasted himself to peanuts). Of course it is in Syria-Iraq, Gaza and Ukraine that the geopolitical fault-lines of multipolarism are exposing major volcanic activity, and the lava is engulfing thousands and thousands of innocent people killed remorselessly for dreams of great power and millennial territorial expansion. Let's see Syria first. Almost 200,000 people have died since Assad, like Qaddafi before him, started bombing his own people. Homs is an open-air cemetery, Aleppo, once the capital of the Umayyad empire (the mosque that testified their long-gone power was destroyed last year - an archeological crime against humanity just like Jonas' tomb destroyed by ISIS a few weeks ago, or the Banyan Buhddas by the talebans fifteen years ago) has been reduced to a mound of rubble. Since the US and the UK dithered over direct intervention and ultimately appeased Putin over Syria, ISIS has defeated all other (mostly Qatari-funded) islamist fighting organizations and become the most fearful enemy of Shias in the region and of the west in the world. Northern Iraq and Western Syria are theirs, while Kurdistan is threatened: this is the fearsome Islamic State. The Syrian war is a nest of ideological and geopolitical contradictions. Assad's Alawite (minor shia sect) army is helped by Hezbollah (the popular Lebanese shia miliatias which are fighting as proxies of Iran) against the islamist forces funded by Saudi Arabia (ISIS) and Qatar (Islamic Front), as well as other formations and other emirates. The Free Syrian Army seems to count as much as the Iraqi army, which melted at the sight of thousands of black-flagged and black-clad jihadists on gun-toting pick-up trucks. The incredible number of victims and refugees of the Syrian war mostly belong to the civilian sunni majority of Syria. Rising Iran and the decline of the House of Saud (source of that wahabbism that has infected the Middle East and the world) are the trends that have driven the political dynamic of the region in the last three decades. They face each other in Syria and in Baghdad. But now the creation of the Islamic State (on the 4th of July!) has become too destabilizing. The violently intolerant jihadists have taken Mosul, ancient Ninive, and its oil fields. Its giant dam is being fought over by the Peshmerga, the fighters of autonomous Kurdistan, pretty much the only positive force in a dark hell of ethnic cleansing and violent misogyny. An independent Kurdish state is bound to emerge from this war if ISIS is defeated. Although Erbil has been seriously threatened, the Kurds have taken Kirkuk, which they regard as their Jerusalem, and its oil fields. A rump Iraq based on a uneasy truce between the shias of the south and the sunnis in the north brokered by the US (and its limited military intervention against ISIS) is possible, but unlikely to be stable, and would further veer the country toward Iran, which is already exerting much influence there through Al-Sistani and has now sent its own revolutionary army, the Pasdaran, to directly fight the Islamic State, which is now turning its ferocity back to Syria (it has just captured its main air force base), to the point that Assad has extended a hand to the US. I think the west should oppose such offer at all costs and instead find an agreement with Iran, which albeit theocratic and repressive, is definitely a modernist form of islam favoring popular participation and tolerating a higher degree of anti-conformism (unless it turns into a green revolution;) with respect to the Gulf petrocracies, especially for what concerns women's rights. An increasingly right-wing Israel opposes such rapprochement with all its energies, and Netanyahu has callously seized the opportunity of US attention caught by Ukraine and Iraq and start its own destabilization of the region by bombing the people of Gaza, invading the city with tanks, and pointlessly trying to eradicate Hamas from the strip. If anything I think Meshal now stands a better chance of becoming the president of a future Palestinian state (if it ever sees the light). Thousand of kids have been mercilessly butchered by the Israeli military, with appalling popular approval at home. Israel has become an ethnic democracy intolerant of the Arab element in its midst. Rabid nationalism is stronger there than in France, Denmark or Greece. It's an apartheid state, but unlike South Africa, the majority is in charge. Unless the US decides to break with the Israel lobby at home and suspends its military aid, no progress will be made there, although American Jews and Americans in general seem to disapprove of Israel's actions to an unprecedented degree. Putin's Russia, which had been on the defensive since 2011, went on the offensive after the euromaidan forces seized power in Ukraine, shifting the country from the Russian to the European (German) sphere of influence. I have already written of how he seized Crimea with blitzkrieg speed and destabilized Eastern Ukraine. From a realist point of view, a country that has already lost a piece of its territory will try to defend what it has left with all the military resources at its disposal. And it's precisely what Poroshenko is doing by hammering the Donetsk republic with all it has and inflicting horrific civilian losses but also accepting high military casualties, since the secession is militarily equipped and trained by the Kremlin: whatever you think of these guys, they have tanks, they are no partisan or guerrilla fighters. The war will end when Merkel and Putin will find an understanding over the status of Ukraine that doesn't compromise energy supplies and eurorussian business ventures, but Russia has lost the Cold War, not won it, Poland and the Baltic members of the EU object to the old eurocore. So it will be a careful game for anemic European diplomacy to navigate between Russian aggressiveness and an unstable Maghreb: as for the Middle East, it is a nasty game best left to the once protective Americans; what is sure is that Sykes-Picot is history for good. In Ukraine, American and European interests seem to diverge. For all the tension built in East Asia by signs of Chinese expansionism and Japanese militarism, with the downing of the (second) Malaysian passenger jet, it is Ukraine that is sending the shivers down the spine of the global economy. But the real threat to an already imbalanced multipolar geopolitical system (historically the most war-prone, think the Napoleonic era or Belle Epoque) is ISIS apocalyptic aggressiveness (uniting popes and ayatollahs in their hostility to it), its mix of media sophistication and barbaric determination something that seems to occur on a different historical time-scale different than the one we normally use to make sense of modernity. And this is occurring in the world's Heartland, where the historical destinies of empires have been decided since the times of Tamerlane. In the end, Realpolitik and the radical democratic aspirations unleashed by the Revolution will clash, as they have always had in the past. War is a way to normalize revolution, to discipline its wild outcomes. Historically, war has also been the tool of choice for every expansionary ideology. For ISIS to lose, Assad, Sisi, and Erdogan can't win. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] ---------- From: *Brian Holmes* <[email protected]> Date: Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM To: [email protected] Alex, it's always great to read your all-embracing visions (though actually what we are living through now is more like a Bruce Sterling novel than a William Gibson one). Anyway, I would like to go a little further with the closing points: In Ukraine, American and European interests seem to diverge. For
all the tension built in East Asia by signs of Chinese expansionism and Japanese militarism, with the downing of the (second) Malaysian passenger jet, it is Ukraine that is sending the shivers down the spine of the global economy.
Since 2008, and above all, since the euro-crisis came online and never went off, what's happening is - for the 90s generation anyway - THE UNTHINKABLE: the end of the predominance of the economy as such. Globalization was the globalization of money, period. Even the Revolution in Military Affairs was a sales pitch for new technology, and the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a business plan for the extractive industries. Since 2008 growth in the West has been radically stalled, the US recovery is a mirage, the German miracle is unsustainable in a devastated EU, and the chatter of web 2.0 can't hide the ravages of technological unemployment. Brad DeLong, who was a Clinton economist, now talks of the Greater Depression instead of the Great Recession. For Euro-American neoliberalism this is an anthropological change. The idea that a kid from the neighborhood can't score a million with a killer app or a new real-estate scheme is the end of an era, the fall of homo delirius. In the void, all interests diverge and entirely new forms of human motivation start vying for some space in the ideological vacuum that human nature abhors. But the real threat to an already imbalanced multipolar geopolitical
system (historically the most war-prone, think the Napoleonic era or Belle Epoque) is ISIS apocalyptic aggressiveness (uniting popes and ayatollahs in their hostility to it), its mix of media sophistication and barbaric determination something that seems to occur on a different historical time-scale different than the one we normally use to make sense of modernity.
In the twilight of the universal equivalent (Dollardammerung) the question of a life-project becomes the huge overriding existential issue, on which the tattered left is almost totally silent after the cocaine and cynicism of the long credit-boom. Multipolar eras are all about grabbing territory, but the real-estate of the heart is just as important. Western intellectuals and political-artistic vanguards are paralyzed by our impotence in the face of both oligarchical control and climate change, while the ISIS jihadis are storming heaven. In the Former West right now I only see two beacons: Podemos in Spain and the Negro Summer of Ferguson, Missouri. But we need a sunrise, not a fire in the night. In the end, Realpolitik and the radical democratic aspirations
unleashed by the Revolution will clash, as they have always had in the past. War is a way to normalize revolution, to discipline its wild outcomes. Historically, war has also been the tool of choice for every expansionary ideology. For ISIS to lose, Assad, Sisi, and Erdogan can't win.
Yeah, we on the radical left have seen the ways that war neutralizes and normalizes revolution, no question about it. Right now Kerry is calling for a global coalition against ISIS. Reboot the global war machine, empire-style. But who would pay for it? The Saudis of course, the same way that Japan paid for the Grand Coalition of the first Gulf War, the one that opened up the era of neoliberal globalization. Let's hope it doesn't happen, because then Assad, Sisi and Erdogan do win. The spectacular religious barbarism of ISIS is a dart to the heart of the disenfranchised militants and intellectuals here in the Former West. What is our answer to multipolar chaos? What is our life project? restlessly yours, Brian -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/