Soldiers on the School Run
Last night I was at the Royal Geographical Society for the annual IRC-UK lecture, ‘Soldiers on the School Run: Sensible Strategy or Disastrous Compromise?’ This is the latest in a series of events trying to define what it is we’re up to in the business of humanitarian interventions. It’s clear to honest professionals in both the military and the aid industry that the way we are dealing with complex emergencies is not working and needs to get a lot better – fast. There’s no choice. The rate of State failure is accelerating. We simply cannot afford too many Somalias.
On the one hand, the military is engaged in adapting to WW4 – the kind of battles waged or imagined in WW2 and the Cold War are history. WW4 is a counterinsurgency war. Neither the battles between national armies that characterized WW2, nor the long distance threatening of the Cold War are relevant to today’s forces fighting jihadists in the fields and villages of Afghanistan. It is a far more complex mission than previous forces had to consider. The WW4 soldier is expected to be part diplomat, part aid worker, and part nation builder. Panelist Ahmed Rashid believes there is a crisis between the military and the NGOs in Afghanistan. The rate of change in mission has been too rapid for the military to adapt its strategy from the Cold War, and their command structure is incompatible with the way NGOs work. But the heart of the problem is the very different perspective of each organization.
For the NGOs, whose objectives range from acute disaster relief to long term development, and who therefore expect to spend anything from a few weeks to years in a given place, the issue is how to maintain independence from the military on which they increasingly rely for logistics and security. It is axiomatic in the Aid industry that aid should be ‘independent, neutral and impartial.’ But in the management of complex emergencies there is increasing involvement of the military, and the politics of military intervention means that there is no neutrality or impartiality. The NGOs are fearful that the more they are identified with the military, their safety will be in jeopardy. It is well known that on this basis the Taliban considers Aid workers to be ‘American Slaves. Mike Young is IRCs director for Asia and the Caucasus, and he’s been at it for 12 years. He doesn’t believe in big plans, he’s all for local, which takes time and trust. He’s frightened that if the Taliban remain after the US and UK forces leave, the locals who worked with the Aid agencies will be killed as collaborators. He remains very doubtful of the long term effectiveness of military based Aid, but admits that we’re stuck with what we’ve got.
Major General (Ret.) Tim Cross, who is a veteran the Gulf, the Balkans and Iraq argued that for the military it wasn’t a question of whether they should be doing development and humanitarian intervention, but how. On balance he said that he thought both the military and the NGOs were doing ‘a reasonable job’, but that ‘we have to keep talking to each other.’ So they have very different missions, and very different ways of operating. But they find themselves working together out of necessity. And not only with NGOs. The US marines have been trying to use academics in its efforts for ‘hearts and minds’ and to avoid accidental civilian casualties. The Human Terrain Systems embed social scientists and anthropologists with combat troops to help tacticians with local knowledge. This new kind of counterinsurgency war/complex emergency situation is demanding rapid adaptation, and if that means embedding academics and /or humanitarian workers, so be it.
Uneasy bedfellows they may be, but it looks like they will be stuck with each other for the foreseeable future. Nation building is new and over the last 10 years it’s been pretty hit and miss. Perhaps what is happening is that two distinct mindsets are having to merge, because the prospect of large parts of Africa and Asia collapsing is too dire to imagine.
Links:
Recrimination vs Innovation
Since Copenhagen I’ve been reading some of the recriminations. Naomi Klein, George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Fred Pearce et al, have all had a go. It was Obama, it was the Chinese, it was Gordon Brown, it was batman, it was that ugly cow outside the café smoking a cigarette, it was that smug bastard banker, it was those corporate swine, it was… them. God damn it, it had to be someone! People, we don’t have time. Hoping that the powers of the status quo are going to be the ones leading the revolution is naïve, and we don’t have time for that kind of naivety either.
There was no government program to invent anything that revolutionized the 20th century. Not for internal combustion, electricity generation, radio, jet engines, penicillin, TV, computers, internet, you name it. It was people with creative imaginations, and it’s people with imagination that are igniting the next revolution. But we have a fantastic advantage over the people at the turn of the last century: nearly instant global communication. Ideas can propagate faster than at any other time. Which means that we can see technological and social change on a scale and at a speed we’ve never seen before, which considering the way things look is just as well. We need to think fast, act fast and communicate.
I was lucky enough to see an advance copy of The Road, today. You want the answer to continuing business as usual? Go see it, that’s the answer. And if that looks like a good way to live, stay on that sofa and don’t do a thing. If on the other hand it makes you weep, as it did me, then time to get cooking.
First of all read Lester Brown’s Plan B. It’s a good place to start, and that’s the point, starting. It’s free online for crying out loud, how much better deal do you need? And quit whinging about how it’s all over and how on the downside of peak oil we may as well just kill ourselves because it’s a rollercoaster ride back to the stone age and there’ll only be 10 of us left at the bottom. And the world will turn into a burning desert by the time they bring dessert. Because it isn’t going to happen. Because we’re going to change the way it all works. Starting now, because business as usual is over.
Why would we want business as usual? We’ve produced one of the ugliest civilizations ever, the kids are so bored they’re knifing each other in the streets, we’ve killed nearly all the trees on the planet, the only alternative to war is shopping, everyone’s closet is so full of cheap Chinese crap there’s barely room to move, we’re pregnant at 12, divorced at 13, and permanently unemployed by corporations that thought what the world needed was a parking lot the size of Russia full of cars no one wants to buy. What? It’s the perfect operation of a free market and we’re just ironing out the kinks? So that a miniscule percentage of the world’s population can sit on superyachts in Monaco with illiterate topshop models dressed up like Moldavian prostitutes? The worst part is that even the people on the superyachts are miserable. All this affluenza advertorial mumbo jumbo has got everyone suicidal. Dear turbo capitalist, buzz off, you’re fired.
But we’re not going to get anywhere with this Green Puritanism business either. We can do without the endless cries of mea culpa from the guilt ridden of the rich world, and the fire and brimstone rhetoric from the climate preachers. First of all, half the population has been bamboozled by the oil companies’ disinformation campaign into thinking climate change is some dopey evil scientist’s conspiracy. So they’re not taking it seriously no matter what you say. Second, to get anywhere you have to have something more interesting than the drumbeat of doom. It’s no good droning on about running out of oil and expecting people to get all perky. You want to know about oil, ask a Saudi.
In this case Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi oil minister in the 1970′s. His famous saying, ‘the stone age didn’t end because they ran out of stones’, is dead right. We’re not going to quit using oil because we’ve used it all, or all that we can get out of the ground economically. We’re going to quit using it because it’s a primitive way to get energy. Once upon a time it was the best we could do, fair enough. It had some unforeseen side effects, like bling bankers in lambos thinking they were cool and other lapses of taste. That and the carbon and the ugliness and the unliveable cities and the cancer and permanent war in the middle east. It’s okay, we’re over it, like big hair and shoulder pads. Oil is so last century. We are going to get our energy from Sun and Wind, and we’re going to use it intelligently. We’re going to do it in ten years and have a blast doing it.
First wind. I live more or less between London and Berkeley and I don’t spend a lot of time in Kansas, but I know three things about Kansas: it’s huge and it’s windy and not many people live there. Ditto other parts of the Midwest and Texas. We’re going to put up wind farms the size of Kansas and ship those electrons to the places people actually live on High Voltage Direct Current lines. HVDC is the business, or as they say in England, the dog’s bollocks. To be frank, why the English use the testicular architecture of the canine species as a metaphor for quality is a mystery to me. But that won’t stop Kansas being the Saudi Arabia of Wind Energy in 10 years. Or Texas. Or South Dakota. Or half a dozen other states.
And up north in Europe we can stop moaning about wind farms buggering up the scenery and get on with it. Put em out at sea. I know it’s already happening, but we need to get a move on here. There are still really inane problems with HVDC circuit breakers and network issues as well as some political problems with building a Europe wide intelligent grid so we can use electricity like grown ups. Well I’m prepared to bet that if we gave some people like say, the Claverton Group, one percent of the money Alistair Darling just gave the banks as a reward for bankrupting earth, we’d have the technical problems solved in a jiffy. As for the political arguments, let me put it this way: All you poli-sci econ majors shuffling round Brussels being important, if civilization collapses no one will care about the Norwegian national electricity pricing policy, will they?
Oh, and a word about buggering up the scenery. A lovely friend of mine bought me Edward Burtynsky’s new book Oil. Buy it and spend a warm evening by the fire in your second home in the Cotswolds, with the girlfriend Tamsin, looking at the ‘scenery’ in that book. Then email me and let me know all your problems with wind farms.
The Sun: Is it worth mentioning the fact that large areas of the US southwest are desert which is sunny a lot of the time? And that some of it isn’t really overdeveloped, not counting Las Vegas and Phoenix? So if you wanted to put up acres and acres of concentrating solar arrays it wouldn’t invade anyone’s personal space. Does this technology work you ask. On February 14th 1980, when my lovely wife Pepper Black (no, seriously) called me to let me know the contractions had started and she thought she might like to go to the hospital, I was on a roof installing a concentrating solar array in the San Fernando Valley. The sun worked in 1980, I assume it still does. To the tune of about 1300 watts a square meter. So instead of using all that metal to build cars and coal fired power plants and private planes and the rest of the left over 20th century rubbish we can build amazing solar arrays in the desert.
When we’re done in the US we’re going on holiday to the Mediterranean. Because it’s sunny there, just like California. So we’re going to build solar arrays there too. And, you got it, ship the electrons across Europe on HVDC. By the time we’ve done Spain, Italy, Greece, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and what’s left of the Levant if they can leave off killing each other for 5 minutes, we’ll have all we need for a while.
How will we afford all the resources we need now that the western world is broke? Lucky break, we have tons and tons of steel cunningly hidden as cars in those Russia sized parking lots. Time to recycle. And the workforce? What about we use some of those so-called ‘unemployed’ people who aren’t busy wasting their time in mindless office jobs and making those cars nobody wanted. And some of those kids who just laid out £20,000 for a degree with a street value of a cup of coffee. Right now they are all sitting at home on benefits looking at daytime TV which a)leads to brain damage and b) is a waste of valuable resources, namely talent and enthusiasm.
Dear Government People: pay them to do it. Hell, you’re already paying them to watch TV. Pay them a living wage and get them out there all over the US and Europe building and installing wind farms and solar arrays. Knock off £5000 of student loans for every year for the kids. Find out what they’re good at, what they want to learn, and set em to it. You’ll be amazed. Ship them all over the place, have them build new energy infrastructure, and they’ll have a great time.
Everyone seems mystified why the kids on the estates are killing one another. It’s because they’re bored, isolated, alienated, there’s nothing to do and nowhere to go and they’ve never met an adult who wasn’t a crack addict or a cop. Half of them have never seen the sea. How about we send them off to Spain, or the North Sea, or Kansas and have them work on real stuff, get some life skills that don’t involve murder, and maybe meet some adults who aren’t totally dysfunctional. Just an idea.
I said earlier that it wasn’t government programs that lead to inventions in the 20th century, and it’s true. It really is the imagination of creative people. But there is a place for government in here and it’s the ability to take on those new ideas and when circumstances require it mobilize millions of people and vast resources. And through the tax code give things a nudge in the right direction. Quit subsidizing carbon industries and start subsidizing wind and solar. I know all the free market people are howling. Excuse me, where do you think all those highways came from, private industry? No, it was a gigantic government subsidy for the car manufacturers in the 1950s. We did it for General Motors, we can do it for our kids.
Okay, now I’ve got a zillion tons of steel and a workforce of 7 million. No problem. We need about 2 million 2MW turbines and a billion square meters of solar arrays, (those are real numbers, except for the zillion) so get cracking. We need to do this over the next decade, which I know sounds like a rush, but hey we manage to make 65 million cars a year. You’ve heard of swords into ploughshares, well this is cars into windmills.
Pretty much the same set of ideas apply to pretty much the rest of the world. How hard is this? There are some technical issues, but nothing beyond the wit of man. We need some organization to get it all done properly. There are some political issues, and that’s the point – we need to stop thinking of narrow national interests here, because if our civilization goes tits up, there won’t be any national interests. There’ll be Viggo Mortensen and his shopping cart and you don’t want that.
Happy Christmas.
Migration
For the last couple of years, while I’ve been spending time on the ocean whenever possible, there’s really been little to say. Much as expected the financial system has imploded and now the people of Europe and the US (at least) are essentially bankrupt, while a number of bankers are incredibly rich. Despite various politicians and banking professionals on both sides of the Atlantic professing astonishment at how such a thing could happen, it was in fact predictable. Soros, Taleb, and a host of others warned for years that the system was a keg of dynamite. It is very difficult to see a way for the economies of the west to recover on a comfortable timeframe. Unfortunately this comes at a time when what we needed in the world was a financial system that would allow us to make the best possible investments in climate remediation efforts and energy infrastructure alternatives to oil and gas. That money has now evaporated or has been spent on private luxury.
On the ecology/climate front I have seen nothing to make me change my initial assessment that we are now past the point of being able to control the speed of ecological collapse in various critical environments and stop the global temperature increasing beyond anything our species has experienced. On the contrary, the acceleration of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues unabated despite the endless round of meetings and treaties. The reason is not hard to see: for politicians it is simply impossible to make the kinds of commitments necessary and stay in office. We are now at 385ppm, and increasing by about 2 ppm per year. So it is inevitable that we will pass 400ppm, at which point our climate will begin to resemble the Miocene, the last time levels were this high. Temperatures were 3∞ to 6∞ C higher and sea level was 24-40m higher.
Worse, it appears from some recent articles that fewer, rather than more, people in the US and Europe believe in anthropogenic climate change. Which means that even if there are some measures we can take it will be very hard to get anything through democratic governments. We are left with trying to come to terms with how to manage in an increasingly chaotic environment with things as they stand. While we haven’t much experience dealing with this level of disruption, there are examples of cultures and societies in the past confronting ecological, financial and population challenges. We don’t have a great record. From the collapse of the Akkadian Empire in 2200 BC, civilization has been repeatedly overwhelmed by natural disasters, overpopulation and financial ruin – rare high impact events to which complex societies are unable to adapt. Despite our technological prowess we are in no better position to deal with such events than Sargon’s subjects. They had, however, a minimal advantage: there was somewhere else to go. We have a global civilization and there’s nowhere else to go.
The traditional response to collapse has been migration on a mass scale by the survivors. There’s nothing in the current circumstances to suggest that the same thing is not happening now. Even the IPCC, which is generally on the conservative side of things, never mind the Pentagon, sees the burgeoning levels of migration from what we used to laughingly call the ‘developing world’ as a major security issue and those nations at the receiving end will increasingly respond militarily. I’m wondering what kind of government changes that requires. Clearly the current liberal governments of the West don’t seem to be advocating such measures, but I’m beginning to wonder how far down the road (think Cormac McCarthy) we go before increasingly frightened populations demand military response. What kind of government does that call for? At what point are people scared enough of the influx to want what is essentially a military government? What does that look like and how would it happen?
leave a comment