Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World


The Non-fiction Feature

The Pithy Take & Who Benefits

Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan takes you a step back–and another step and another step–to see the full picture of the global Order. The Order, created when the U.S. offered military and economic support to countries in exchange for being allies with it against the Soviet Union after WWII, has led to an unprecedented level of connection and growth around the world. In the last few decades, though, this globalization fervor has waned, and this book is about what might rise from its ashes.

I think this book is for people who seek to understand:

(1) how incredibly valuable and useful the Order has been;
(2) where several countries stand in the Order and what they might gain/lose in Disorder, by evaluating their economies, demographics, geographies, and resources; and
(3) how the U.S. might shape the world to come.


The Outline

The preliminaries

  • There are two main concepts about societies.
    • First, continuity.
      • This is the idea that the structural things that make your life good and possible–health, shelter, clean water, food, education, clothing, a functioning government, etc.–will still be around tomorrow.
      • Historically speaking, continuity is rare. Things like droughts, floods, plagues, and coups have all been able to ruin continuity and wreck societies.
    • Second, economies of scale.
      • Instead of you learning and carrying out every single task that you need for your life, other people take charge of their speciality tasks, while you take charge of your singular specialty task.
      • Different people are better at different things, and matching people with their niche makes the entire system more productive and efficient.
    • National success requires both continuity and economies of scale.
  • In conjunction with this, there are four critical assets necessary for a society’s survival:
    • Usable land and defensible borders;
    • A good food supply;
    • A sustainable population structure;
    • Access to a stable mix of energy inputs to participate in modern life.

The Order, back then

  • After WWII, only two main powers remained: the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
    • At this point, the U.S. needed a world full of allies.
    • The U.S. offer went something like this: If you side with the U.S. against the Soviets, the U.S. will use its military might to protect you, and its economic might to subsidize your economy.
      • It is critical to remember that U.S. involvement in the Order was never about free trade as an end–free trade was the bribe. 
    • This morphed into the first global Order.
      • Overall, the Order worked well–it provided the grounding for the entire U.S. strategy throughout the Cold War.
      • Things like globalized food supplies and manufacturing supply chains are hugely critical to our day-to-day lives.

The Order, now

  • But after the Soviet fall, the U.S. lacked an overarching global strategy, and lurched from crisis to crisis.
    • Its power was seen as something to be used tactically, rather than a tool for shaping the broader picture.
    • These days, the Order has had to justify its continuing existence to the U.S. public, which has not gone well.
  • We are now entering a global Disorder–a world without U.S. overwatch as the global police, referee, or financier.
    • This loss of interest will have enormous effects, in part because the Order’s safety and openness enabled such massive agricultural and economic growth that the global population tripled.
    • In the impending Disorder, the achievements accumulated under the Order will be lost and that loss will be palpable. People will remember the degree of security and wealth, while never being able to achieve it on their own.
    • The oncoming collapse of economic norms will in turn shatter political norms – in democracies, this will require an overhaul of social contracts.

To understand the effects of the Order coming to an end, it is important to have a general understanding of U.S. politics.

  • In the U.S., candidates run for a specific seat representing a specific constituency. To win, you don’t need a majority–you only need one more vote than the other person.
    • This heavily shapes the makeup of the country’s political parties. 
    • Any party that focuses on local, rather than national, issues is never going to gain traction outside of its immediate area, so it gets swallowed up by larger, more national groups.
    • This makes America’s parties both stable and weak.
      • They’re stable in that once a coalition is formed, that party sticks around for decades.
      • They’re weak in that each faction has its own ideas, and getting the factions behind any specific goal requires a great deal of work.
  • The Republican Party
    • This party is an alliance of six groups: business, national-security, fiscal-primacy, evangelicals, pro-lifers, and populists.
    • Each has a core issue they’re passionate about, and don’t really care about the rest. So, it’s easy to build a platform that takes every group’s interest into account while avoiding clashes.
    • From 2000 on, though, the Republicans began to fall out.
      • The Global War on Terror horrified the fiscal and business groups.
      • Government incompetence over hurricane responses didn’t please anyone, but the storms hit areas so filled with evangelicals that even the farthest right got angry.
      • The Republicans had little experience in managing policy disputes, so its leaders handled these clashes poorly.
    • But the deepest alienation was felt among the populists.
      • The populists had long been the party’s crazy uncle, tolerated only because they were disorganized and would vote for the party without shaping the agenda.
        • This changed over the years, leading to the Tea Party and the alt-Right.
        • Then, with Donald Trump, the populists started calling the shots, shocking the others.
        • For instance, the populist position on social positions alienated the fiscal conservatives, while their views on national security infuriated the military and intelligence communities. Their immigration positions split the evangelical community, and their positions on finance have banished the business community. Save for the pro-lifers, the old Republican coalition is shattered.
  • And then the Democrats, whose problems are more linked to flawed planning.
    • In the mid-1980s, the Dems became obsessed with demographics, concluding that due to immigration, differences in birthrates, and the rising women’s and gay rights movements, a party that could lead a coalition of blacks, Hispanics, gays, and single women would because the natural governing party.
    • But this reading fell short.
      • Most blacks, Hispanics, and union members lean left on economic issues, but are socially conservative. Most gays and single women lean left on individual political rights, but are more center-right on economics.
  • The 2016 election broke both coalitions, and it will take time for U.S. political factions to reorganize into new alliances.
    • And until new coalitions emerge, there cannot even begin to be internal discussions about what U.S. foreign policy should look like.
    • The inability of the Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama administrations to start this conversation–about what will replace the Order–plus the breakdowns of the parties, means that the U.S. cannot even begin to define foreign policy for another decade.
    • Meanwhile, we are stuck with what currently passes as foreign policy (a weird mix of current passions and the lingering inertia of an out-of-date system).

U.S. foreign policy

  • It was much easier to motivate both sides of the aisle and the populace when the issue was clear: beat the Soviets so we don’t die in a nuclear war.
  • But after that ended, no new vision replaced it, and the U.S. became less interested in the world.
    • This view pervades both the left and the right. The U.S. now has fewer troops stationed abroad than at any time since the Great Depression. And under the past four presidents, relations have degraded with every country on the planet.
    • This is concerning, because it could result in future conflicts that are preventable and wouldn’t have to be fought alone.
      • That is, this type of ghosting of traditional allies, plus the military narrowing its focus, makes U.S. policy less predictable and potentially more disruptive.

The World under the Order
The author covers–by detailing geography, economy, demographics, security capabilities, etc.–where other countries stand in the Order, and what they have to gain or lose in Disorder. Below is a snapshot:

China

  • Although China is often viewed as a threat to the U.S., it is important to remember that China has big problems, too: it cannot build and maintain a large navy, and a large air force, and a large internal security force, and a large army, and a large intelligence system, and a special forces system, and global deployment capability at the same time.
    • But for China to be a true global power to replace the U.S., it would need all of these, and it simply does not have them.
  • Rather, the real question is whether China can even hold itself together.
  • China is a complex political entity, and its culture has a hard time keeping itself together.
  • And, its economy is highly dependent on international trends that it cannot control.
  • Finally, it has terrible relations with its neighbors, so if the Order ends, everything that has made China successful will end with it, and no one will reach out to help.

Japan

  • Contemporary Japan faces multiple difficulties, many of which stem from its geography. Its ruggedness prevents the formation of suburbs, so there are a lot of only children and a lot of childless couples.
    • This demographic problem becomes tangled with another problem: access to materials.
    • Japan is very dependent on external access for goods, and under the Order, this didn’t really matter.
  • In terms of relationships, Japan is one of the few countries that has a positive relationship with almost all the countries of the Persian Gulf. It also has the second best Navy in the world. 
  • Despite its demographic concerns, all in all, Japan has the capacity, relationships, navy, technological know-how, and geographic insulation to step into the space left by a retreating U.S.

Russia

  • At its height, the Soviet Union was the third-largest empire in history.
    • One problem with its information-controlled system was that the only people who fully understood what was happening with the country were a precious few at the top of its intelligence services.
    • The leader of these few was Vladimir Putin, who has ruled the Russian Federation since 1999.
  • In the last decade, in large part due to sanctions on technology transfers, Putin has given up modernizing Russia.
    • So, the Russian economy mostly runs on some resources extraction, and some value from metals and energy.
  • Russia’s biggest problem is size – it has enormous tracts of low-productivity land stretched across eleven time zones. Moving people and goods across that kind of terrain is expensive and challenging.
    • This, in addition to its demographic and educational constraints, traps the Russian economy as a commodities producer and exporter, and the only reason why those exports can safely reach consumers is the security that the Order provides.
    • So, if you remove the U.S. safety of the Order, the Russian economy’s ability to generate capital disappears.

Germany

  • Germany has great terrain, but its birth rate has been falling.
    • This is a problem because its social stability depends on a generous system of government services, which exists only because of high tax receipts and few dependents.
    • But, this golden age is waning.
    • Germany’s economic growth has been possible because of the risk-free trade it has with the wider world that the Order provided–Germany will likely suffer enormously from the Order’s end.
      • To elaborate: Germany’s economy depends on using its manufacturing sector to push high-quality goods to a global consumer base. 
      • With no Order, and with its trade within the European Union starting to crumble, things are starting to fall apart.

France

  • France is emerging as the only significant European country that has a sustainable domestic system.
    • It derives much of its power from the region called the Beauce, which is an incredibly fertile agricultural system that has fed northern France for centuries.
    • In a world beyond the European Union, France has a robust capacity to adapt. It can provide technical assistance for their energy sectors and security for their commerce.
  • But it has cultural issues.
    • The French Revolution (which involved the beheading of multiple royal family members) also led to populism: nationalist France (nationalism is the concept that a country and its ethnicity are inexorably linked).
    • There is a significant stratification in French society, between the French of Caucasian background and those from colonized areas. As such, France diverts scarce resources in order to maintain civil stability.
      • This creates alienated communities in every major city. 
  • Despite this wedge, France will likely rise given its economy, agriculture, and possession of a military that is independent of NATO.

Iran

  • Part of why the Middle East is always so chaotic is because the lack of water makes it difficult to establish continuity. A scant amount of rain lands in the highlands, with only a small amount coming downstream.
    • Most populations are clustered tightly around water sources. One abnormality in the delicate water supply, and things descend into raiding and counter-raiding.
  • One of Iran’s biggest problems is internal transport: there are no navigable rivers, and very few flat areas. This is in part why its economy is struggling.
  • Iran does have oil, though. Unfortunately, although oil made Iran relevant, it also made it a target.
    • The British and the U.S. were the biggest players for Persian oil, and when the Iranians tried to exercise more authority, the British and the U.S. removed its prime minister and replaced him with an absolutist monarchy.
  • Even so, Iran now has more-or-less won regional leadership, but it is not prepared to protect those gains.

Saudi Arabia

  • Similar to Iran, Saudi’s terrain is not friendly.
  • In terms of governance, it has a medieval-style monarchy: a tyrant king, family-murdering, crush-the-peasants monarchy.
    • Power is kept entirely within the ruling family, and political dissent is punished by imprisonment, torture, and execution.
    • And out of fear of overthrow, the family does not allow a normal military or a professional class.
  • Poor terrain and little political choice is incredibly draining on its population. Even its economy is limited–the ruling family doesn’t want a bunch of college graduates, so rather than educate the populace, millions of guest workers are brought in as needed
  • But, it has oil. Because of oil, it became a regional political and economic power. The oil revolution injected this area with vast wealth, which was used to import food of quantities and qualities that were previously unimaginable.
    • And since WWII, the population has grown enormously, so anything that disrupts oil flow will disrupt the food supply, which the country desperately needs and cannot produce itself.
  • Overall, Saudi Arabia is in the rare position of having the money and ability to position itself as a counterweight to Iran in a region long defined by U.S. mismanagement.

Turkey

  • Way back when, Istanbul was a safe, central location between Africa, Europe, and Asia. But when everyone learned to sail the ocean, their advantage evaporated.
    • If the Order dissolves and ocean trade becomes alarmingly unsafe, regional systems like Istanbul will become critical again.
  • Turkey also has the most capable army in Europe and the Middle East. Although the Turkish economy has languished in recent years, the country’s position and population structure make it a growing manufacturing hub and the region’s bright spot.

Brazil

  • Economically, Brazil’s manufacturing has been excellent. But Brazil owes much of its modern existence to globalization and the Order; without foreign capital to fuel its infrastructure, and without safe transport to send its beef and soy around the world, Brazil will struggle mightily.
  • Its social structure is also problematic.
    • There was no pioneer era, where commoners could get free land. Rather, the only way people could acquire land during Brazil’s colonial era was via direct gift from the Portuguese emperor.
      • Over the years, these people who received land – oligarchs – believe that most of Brazil’s progress is a direct outcome of their investments.
      • That is, they control almost all aspects of life in their regions, and there is a deep culture of corruption.
    • This means that Brazil cannot achieve national economic goals without oligarchic buy-in, leading to some of the world’s most extreme economic inequality.
  • Even with the Order’s external and global market stability, the Brazilian system is failing.
    • It’s losing control of its cities, suffers race riots, and is contending with multiple populist uprisings.

Argentina

  • Argentina boasts an impressive confluence of rivers that leads to a massive commercial hub: Buenos Aires.
    • It’s the central node for the country’s agricultural processing and export, its industrial base, population core, political center, and cultural heart.
  • Argentina also has some of the most secure geography on the planet, plus a solid array of mineral, beef, grain, soy, copper, wine, oil, and natural gas production.
  • But Argentina is also an example of how political decisions can throttle excellent geographic advantages: a mix of nationalist-socialist-facist policies have resulted in inflation and debt defaults.
    • If Argentina can adjust to a more stable political ideology, it has the potential to dominate South America.

And More, Including:

  • The complex relationship–particularly in terms of military, economy, and energy–between India, Japan, Taiwan, and China
  • The high number of Chinese loans that have gone completely bad (around $8.5 trillion) and what it means for China
  • The true threats that Russia’s intimidating terrain pose to its top leadership
  • The tense relation between France and Germany, and how it might shape the Europe in Disorder
  • How the leader of Saudi Arabia is trying to buff up bits of the country’s security apparatus for an actual war
  • How Turkey has navigated the threats and opportunities arising from their neighbors: specifically, Ukraine, Iraq, and Syria
  • How an “America First” mindset–whether from the left or the right–will lead to Disorder

Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World

Author: Peter Zeihan
Publisher: Harper Business
480 pages | 2020
Purchase
[If you purchase anything from Bookshop via this link, I get a small percentage at no cost to you.]

disunited nations