In his acclaimed book
“The End of History and the Last Man”, Francis Fukuyama explores the
possibility of an ecological catastrophe and states ‘yet even these extreme
circumstances would appear unlikely to break the grip of technology over
civilization and science’s ability to replicate itself.”[1]
The reason he gives is the need for states to defend themselves. War he posits
will mean that technology is with us always. Modern communications have spread
the scientific method throughout the world. There is no going back. This has far reaching implications for our future, for consumerism, the environment and its relationship to the
threat of war.
Liberal Capitalism
The nature of Anglo
American liberalism developed from the thought of Locke and Hobbes produces a
society preoccupied with its own material well-being.[2] The fundamental right is self preservation,
as Fukuyama notes “in the absence of positive, “higher” goals what usually
fills the vacuum at the heart of Lockean liberalism is the open-ended pursuit
of wealth.”[3] In today’s American culture, the pursuit of
wealth is seen as the supreme virtue, billionaires are modern day saints. In earlier times, saints such as Francis of
Assisi and Rose of Lima were praised for their poverty and humility. Christianity was a religion that flourished in
a slave mentality. Liberal Capitalism has been the political process whereby a former
slave has the opportunity to be a master. In the bestselling book by Tom Wolfe
“Bonfire of The Vanities”, wealthy investment bankers and stockbrokers are
accurately portrayed as “Masters of The Universe.” The freest man in modern capitalism is the
wealthy man. It is no coincidence that Christianity in the US is concentrated
in the lower classes as well as in areas of rural and urban poverty. The
poorest States are also the most religious. In that regard Marx was accurate
when he identified religion as the “opium of the people.”
In order to maintain
the freedom brought about by wealth, western Liberal Capitalism has to assure
the necessary raw materials and manufacturing processes are uninterrupted. It was this need that drove nineteenth
century imperialism. Cecil Rhodes the
British colonial politician summed up nineteenth century imperial policy as
“The absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means
the end of wars.[4]
Britain in the nineteenth century and the United States today assure the
continuation of their systems and economic way of life by establishing a
world-wide network of military bases. When a source of raw materials is
threatened the military machine goes into action, as happened when Iraq invaded
Kuwait in 1991.
The spread of American
style capitalism and consumerism is underwritten by the threat of military
force. Peace is maintained as long as
consumerism is not threatened. This is accomplished through trade.
Better to Trade Than
Invade
The premise that trade
and interdependence decreases the likelihood of war is hotly contested. There
are two schools of thought; Liberals believe that states would rather trade
than invade; Realists on the other hand believe interdependence creates
vulnerability, and increases the likelihood of war. The problem with both Liberal and Realist
assertions is that neither can explain satisfactorily the run ups to World Wars
1 and 2. Dale Copeland has suggested another variable. His study of the causes
for war introduces the concept of trade expectations. When the trade
relationship is mutually beneficial and there are future gains, the risk of war
decreases. When the trade relationship is severed and future gains are
diminished, the state that is most dependent is likely to go to war.[5] Effectively the security of the state is
being undermined. What this means for
consumerism is that should China decide to stop manufacturing electronics such
as mobile phones for American companies, these companies would go out of
business as nearly all mobile phones are manufactured China. The US
telecommunications systems would fall apart. Fearing that its electronics
industry, computer industry and other high profit centers were threatened, war
would ensue. Fundamental, to maintaining modern consumerism is an asymmetric
relationship, where one State effectively has control of another States’
economic well-being. The risk of war is heightened by outsourcing
and the spread of consumerism.
Spreading the Gospel of
Consumerism
The rise of Asian
countries from Third World to economic powers was largely facilitated by
international investment. Capitalists,
as Gabor Steingart points out, cannot be blamed[6].
Their role is to maximize profit on their investments. Policymakers saw the
expansion into Asia as a means to maintain peace and as valuable political
leverage. Moving boring, dull,
repetitive low skilled jobs overseas not only removed the environmental costs
society pays in the US, but it would allow for Americans to focus on more
skilled and environmentally friendly employment in the service and high tech
sectors. The lower cost of overseas
labor would drive greater company profits which would be invested in a cleaner,
modern US economy. In the process new markets would open creating new jobs at
home and everyone would effectively get a pay raise, as imports can be
purchased at a fraction of the cost of domestic production. This rosy projection ignored history, human
nature and the political ambitions of those overseas manufacturing countries.
From an environmental
point of view, it has already been a catastrophe and the benefits of peace
maybe fleeting. In a little over a decade from 1990 China’s emissions of CO2
have increased by 100%. Outdoor
pollution has been responsible for nearly 400,000 premature deaths a year as
well as rising rates of diarrhea, bladder problems, stomach and liver cancer.
China’s deserts are growing at a rate of 965 square miles a year, seventy
percent of its lakes and rivers are highly polluted. A similar picture can be sketched in India
and other Asian countries.[7]
Has this environmental
destruction in the name of cheaper goods assured the West of peace and
prosperity? Steinhart shows there is no historical precedent. Prior to World
War 1 at the height of European imperialism and industrialization there were no
indications as to future root causes for war to happen.
Nor have the Asian
countries been willingly to remain low wage manufacturers for the West. The
Chinese and Indian governments have poured money into research and education. Asian
countries want to be high tech economic powerhouses.
Behind this drive for
success is the painful memory of Western colonial humiliation. Unlike Anglo American Liberalism based on
reason and desire, Asian, Near East and many Southern European countries place
value on the “need for recognition.” This need identified by Hegel states that
humans seek satisfaction in honor. Throughout history, attested to in famous
books like the Iliad, mankind has sought to find glory to be masters of others.
In Asia this was exemplified by the Japanese culture of the Samurai warrior. Work
was below them; their needs were furnished by the population at large.
At the end of the
eighteenth century Steinhart describes how the British willfully pushed Indian
opium into China. Within a few years over a quarter of the population was
addicted. What followed was the systematic rape of China’s natural resources
and subjugation of its people by the British and other Western powers. Their humiliation at the hands of Western powers
is a national insult that has not been or will be forgotten until it can
restore its honor.
Effectively, China has
declared economic warfare on the United States and the West. They will bring most of the West to their
knees to restore their honor. It is very
significant that the Chinese have not allowed the population at large to share
in the spoils of recent growth. Most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands
of the elite. Wealth is not seen as a virtue, but as a tool for power. In a matter of a decade the Chinese have
mastered modern manufacturing processes, conquered space, tested anti-satellite
missiles[8],
bought up major electronics companies, secured raw materials in the Near East, Africa
and South America. They forced Western countries to divulge their technological
blue prints.[9]
What is not given is stolen through economic espionage or cyber terrorism. Consumerism has not only resulted in
environment degradation it has laid the seeds for the demise of the West. Consumers
in the US will one day be serfs, nostalgic for the days of plenty and cursing
those that sold them out to their Asian Masters.
Wounded Beasts of The
East
Of the 900-1000 US
military bases a quarter are in Asia. These
bases serve to protect American commercial interests, but for the local
inhabitants they are an environmental time-bomb, poisoning their air, water and
land. The American military presence is a
source of deep shame and increasing anger. A study was undertaken and reported
in the Asia-Pacific Journal of the environmental impact of bases in Japan,
Okinawa and the Philippines.
In 1991 the US returned
Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base to the Philippines. The terms of the treaty left clean up to the
Philippines. When Mt Pinatubo exploded, Clark Air Force Base was used as an
emergency shelter. No-one informed those sheltering there that the ground was
laced with toxic chemicals. The shallow drinking wells used during their stay
resulted in serious health consequences. At Subic Bay, former ship workers have
come down with cancer, asbestosis and other ailments. Over 1000 have died and
another 1600 are seriously ill, from base related contamination according to a
local NGO.[10]
A similar litany of
toxic encounters have been discovered in Japan; the former Communications
Station at Onna Point has yielded cadmium, lead, arsenic, PCBs and mercury
pollution, Camp Kuwae was found to have
lead contamination at levels twenty times higher than acceptable, along with
chromium and arsenic. These toxic
encounters were discovered only when the bases and station were scheduled to be
turned back to Japan. There are hundreds
more such bases with unknown environmental histories. A sense of the scope of
the pollution problem can be gained from a systematic examination of US bases
in Germany. In 1992 the cost to clean up 309 military sites was $3
billion. Germans mostly get their
drinking water from aquifers. To clean up groundwater contamination around
Mannheim, a town of 350,000 people, cost over $10 million dollars and took a
decade to complete.[11]
US bases overseas are
not subject to mandatory regulations or even the host countries own
environmental standards. Nor can the host country do inspections, even though
Japan pays the US $6.4 billion a year in what is called a “Sympathy Budget” to
run the bases. Anger at the US
environmental pollution, crime and prostitution in Okinawa has resulted in mass
demonstrations. When Japanese Prime
Minister Yukio Hatoyama failed to live up to his campaign pledge to move the US
base at Okinawa, he resigned in disgrace. Such is the depth of feelings and the
power of honor in a shame culture.
The Military and The
Environment
It costs the US $6-$700
billion each year to maintain hundreds of bases around the world. That is $2000
per year for every man woman and child. These bases are maintained to insure
the American Consumer Lifestyle is protected and grows. There is another price
paid as well, one of serious environment pollution. In 1989 Camp Lejeune was designated a
Superfund Clean-Up site. Trichloro Ethylene (TCE), a cleaning solvent used in
1960s had polluted the ground water aquifers.
Safe levels for TCE are 5 parts per billion. At Camp Lejeune the
readings were 1400 parts per billion. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found high rates of
miscarriages, birth defects and leukemia in the local population. There are
over 700 lawsuits filed against the Federal Government.[12]
In Newport News, VA the
pollution caused by bases in the area bases has left a deadly and still largely
unknown legacy that covers hundreds of square miles near Norfolk Virginia. The Daily Press reported just a few of the
problems “They include poisoning of
marine life -- posing a danger to those who would eat it and putting great
sections of water off-limits to anglers. They include deposits of substances
that are lethal -- but whose location we don't know, since accurate records
weren't kept. They include acres of soil and patches of groundwater that are
contaminated by arsenic, gunpowder, fuel, asbestos and other substances that
cause cancer. They aren't confined, but reach from Langley Air Force Base to
Cheatham Annex, from Fort Eustis to the Naval Weapons Station Yorktown”[13].
Every year the
Department of Defense generates more hazardous waste than the five largest
chemical companies combined. In fairness
to the military, the Pentagon has made environmental cleanup and prevention an
integral part of operations. The political,
public relations, health and financial costs are too high for pollution to be
ignored. But the nature of modern
warfare means environmental degradation is inevitable. By some estimates the
world’s militaries combined use more petroleum products than Japan, the world’s
second largest economy and a quarter of all jet fuel.[14]
When unexploded ordnances, nuclear waste, biological weapons, noise pollution,
chemical defoliants and other by-products of warfare are considered, an ecology
disaster is almost inevitable.
The United States
spends about the same on defense than the rest of the world combined. The primary purpose of this enormous
expenditure is to maintain a way of life based on consumerism that is not
sustainable. But the end of consumerism
as we know it will not come from environmental collapse. Instead consumerism will fail in the face of
Authoritarian Capitalism.
The End of Consumerism
Environmentalist and
ecologists see a doomsday scenario; American consumerism will spread worldwide
leading to an environmental collapse.
They project the current American consumer lifestyle to fast developing
countries especially China. This
reasoning has a number of flaws.
Francis Fukuyama points
out there is no evidence that adopting capitalism results in democracy or liberalism.
He points not just to China, but to numerous South American and Near East countries
and even to Franco’s Spain. Not only
does capitalism not require liberalism, but the Anglo American form traced back
to Locke and Hobbes is specific to the history and thinking of a very small
portion of mankind. More likely is
authoritarian capitalism similar to what is happening in China.
For decades it has been
assumed that the US was invincible because of its nuclear and high technology
weaponry. This is no longer the case.
China has demonstrated that it has effective anti-satellite weapons. Those weapons used against American
satellites would disable the military machine. All modern weapons use satellite
guidance and communications. It was also assumed that American technological
superiority would never be surpassed. Today, most electronics are made in Asia,
mostly in China. They are also leading in alternative energy. China controls 99% of the rare metals and raw
materials used in solar panels, hybrid cars, superconductors and other advanced
technologies.[15]
Our military is
effectively a paper tiger. The day is
dawning when the Chinese will assert their superior technological power. Liberal
Capitalism and consumerism will end.
It will not be a benevolent
or a kind change. China with a quarter
of the world’s population has the capacity to control the technological
advanced nations, with the possible exception of Germany. The Germans never signed onto the reckless
outsourcing of manufacturing and Wall Street shenanigans; instead they created
what is called Stakeholder Capitalism.[16] Siemens still produces electronics in Stuttgart;
BMW still makes it cars in Munich.
Germany is planning a sustainable future using Green technologies. In
technology they are the only match for the Chinese.
The population concerns
expressed by environmentalists will dissolve away. The populations of Europe
are shrinking, and those of the developing world little use to the Chinese. In
authoritarian capitalism those without an economic purpose will be
terminated. Currently, according to the
FBI, USB drives carried into China by American executives are infected with a
Trojan horse so important information can be later accessed. In future, the Chinese
controlled authorities will use new nanotechnologies that allow small homing
devices to be implanted in the citizens of the subservient nations including
those in the US. In the worst case scenario, the standard of
living except for a small elite cadre of functionaries will be reduced to a subsistence
level, and at best small non threatening businesses will be allowed to serve
local populations. Chinese will become
the Lingua Franca.
The shame of nineteenth
century capitalism will be revenged. The ignored warnings of
union leaders, left leaning politicians and Conservatives like Pat Buchanan[17]
will ring a constant clarion of miss opportunity and regret. The Price of
Peace, the price of consumerism, the price of liberal capitalism will be
centuries of slavery. From an
environmental point of view Mother Earth will breathe a sigh of relief.
[1]
Fukuyama, Francis. “The End of History and the Last Man” Macmillian Free Press,
pp 87,1992
[2]
Ibid, pp145
[3]
Ibid, pp160
[4] Steingart, Gabor. “The War For
Wealth.” Mc Graw-Hill, 2008
[5] Copeland, Dale
C. “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations.” International Security, Vol. 20, no.4 Spring
1996.
[6][6]Steingart,
Gabor. “The War For Wealth.” Mc Graw-Hill, 2008
[7] [7]Steingart, Gabor. “The War For
Wealth.” Mc Graw-Hill, 2008
[8] http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/CHI01177.xml
[9] http://www.defensenews.com/article/20111116/DEFSECT01/111160310/Congress-Challenges-GE-China-Aviation-Deal
[11] Satchell, Michael. “The mess
we've left behind.” U.S. News & World Report, 11/30/92, Vol. 113 Issue 21,
p28,
[12] Goode, Darren, “Investigative Panel
Targeting Pollution At Military Bases.” CongressDaily. 5/25/2007
[13]
Editorial.“A toxic legacy: The scale of the military's pollution is huge, the
scale of clean-up is not.” Daily Press
(Newport News, VA), Jun 15, 2007
[14] Ecologist, “War on the Environment.” Vol. 33 Issue 4, p44,
May2003
[15] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6082464/World-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as-China-eyes-ban-on-rare-metal-exports.html
[16]
Lind, Michael. “The failure of shareholder capitalism”
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/29/failure_of_shareholder_capitalism/
[17] http://buchanan.org/blog/yankee-utopians-in-a-chinese-century-4227
No comments:
Post a Comment