While failed states have been a hot topic since we learned the hard way that we ignore those states, like Afghanistan, at our own peril, the idea is more nuanced than we believe. If we take the recent violence in Brazil for example, we see state failure, but we also see alternative suppliers of sovereignty. Walking into any Brazilian favela, assuming you aren’t killed, is like entering a mini-state where local gangs provide security, basic services, a form of government and even detain “criminals.” Sounds more like a fuedal state than a failed one. Yet, Brazil is certainly not alone. As I saw firsthand, everything south of central Beirut is Hizballah country where they provide not only security, basic services and a political outlet for their citizens, but also education, television programming and more. The same goes for Hamas in Palestine.
The current issue of Foreign Affairs has an article on the rise of the new Middle Ages and goes into more detail about the aforementioned issues. Only a portion of it is available online so this would be a good time to subscribe if you don’t already.
Summary: The Middle Ages ended when the rise of capitalism on a national scale led to powerful states with sovereignty over particular territories and populations. Now that capitalism is operating globally, those states are eroding and a new medievalism is emerging, marked by multiple and overlapping sovereignties and identities — particularly in the developing world, where states were never strong in the first place.
With non-state actors assuming more state-like qualities and responsibilities, a look into the past may be warranted:
Three primary elements characterized feudalism: lords, vassals and fiefs; the structure of feudalism can be seen in how these three elements fit together. A lord was a noble who owned land, a vassal was a person who was granted land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief. In exchange for the fief, the vassal would provide military service to the lord. The obligations and relations between lord, vassal and fief form the basis of feudalism.
Sounds familiar. While criminal gangs, such as smugglers, inhabit and operate in the law enforcement gaps, these gangs/fuedal lords carve out their own sovereign space inside areas where the state doesn’t. What ties smuggling and other decentralized yet international organizations to actual gangs which control and manage physical space? Get ready for another blast from the past: ungoverned space.I discussed this concept not long ago and as you’ll recall, ungoverned space isn’t only physical:
Ungoverned Area is defined by DoD as “a physical or non-physical area where there is an absence of state capacity or political will to exercise control.”Â?
This is nexus of the two, where decentralized networks meet ungoverned space. Think Afghanistan. International terrorist networks can operate worldwide, but they still need a physical base for certain things like training camps, meetings and more. Similarly, anyone in the world can buy and sell stock, but somewhere they still need a physical marketplace. Thus Afghanistan was to Al Qaeda as Gangturf is to drug/gun smugglers. Even 4GW warriors need a physical base and eventually have to adopt conventional attacks. Before I get too far off topic, I’d like to conclude with a map and leave the rest for follow up posts. It shows, and is by no means comprehensive the use of ungoverned spaces to transport illicit goods. In other words, it’s the illegal “Core.”
While the networks are decentralized, international and very resiliant, they need physical space in which to operate. Thus, in our fight against smugglers, terrorist, gangs and the mafia, what combination of area denial and network disruption should we use? Should we concentrate on space (such as barely governed trade routes) to disconnect them or target the networks themselves, or both? Perhaps more importantly, with the above in mind, how viable is a centralized and hierarchical solution like the one Thomas Barnett espouses?
My next posts the series will cover feudal vs gang structure and the blurry line between crime and war. Stay tuned.
allow me to make a frivolous comment, please, to an important post:
remember when Princess Leia told Grand Moff Tarkin that the more he tightened his grip, the more systems would slip through his fingers?
that was awesome!
;-)
now, please go back to being serious…
” Ah, my young Jedi…”
Ahem.
Great post Chirol ! Very well done.
A few comments:
The Middle Ages were also characterized by the twin ideals of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire, two ” universal” myths to tie Christendom together.
A critical node to disrupt in Black globalization networks are the financial hubs that willingly launder blackmarket revenues into ” white” profits. A bagful of diamonds at some point has to become greenbacks.
Tom is getting a rap lately for being an all-government, centralizing, advocate of a security GOSPLAN for the Core. This is a cartoon. Perhaps the emphasis on market and private action in PNM/BFA should have been made more explicit but let’s face it, Dr. Barnett is an expert on military and geopolitical strategy and not an economist or a financial analyst and didn’t delve into those details ( for example the behavior of emerging markets). That does not mean however that he is in favor of “hierarchy” over “networks”.
Some amalgamation of feudalism and capitalism does appear to be the most organic, spontaneous social structure. Kaplan is looking more prescient by the day.
“…Dr. Barnett is an expert on military and geopolitical strategy and not an economist or a financial analyst…”
Barnett may not be a finance expert, but he has worked with Canter-Fitzgerald, and his research with them dealt with the precise issue here; rule-sets. Anyone attempting a global theory like this needs to be familiar enough with the relevant fields.
Feudalism has been defined as the power of the state in private hands, and so by that definition Chirol’s paradigm here would definitely apply in some areas. Somalia is another one which is heating up now; right now it is the warlords, which the U.S. is now apparently helping, fighting the Islamists, a la Afghanistan.
I think that Chirol’s main point deals with an area where the 9/11 attacks brought about a paradigm shift in U.S. foreign policy. Prior to 2001, I was among the many who were skeptical of the whole nation-building idea, but as long as it is undertaken with a proper sense of realism about how difficult it is, I think that is necessary now precisely for the reason that Chirol gives – our enemies need space.
“Anyone attempting a global theory like this needs to be familiar enough with the relevant fields.”
And Barnett is. It’s not like he isn’t capable of doing quantitative analysis and secondly, the underlying premise of PNM revolves around economics, not military power projection. His goal was to put military strategy in the context of everything else, not to write a treatise primarily on the nuances of economic theory.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Neo-Medievalism II
The bottom line is that feudalism failed, was pushed out by better systems. There’s nothing presented here that demonstrates that it’s gotten any better this time around. At most, what’s being illustrated here is a “least worst” alternative coming out of the Gap instead of a real “counter Core” such as those dreaming of a worldwide Caliphate present.
To answer the closing question on network disruption methods, it’s “yes”. The cure for these networks is constant pressure that induces error, leads to network disruption and a smaller/weaker reestablished network after each successful disruption. Whether you concentrate on one aspect or another or do a full court press at all points, the worse the total pressure, the more likely you will induce the dons to mess up and get captured, leading to less experienced figures moving up the ranks, weakening and eventually destroying the network.
As for Dr. Barnett’s solutions, I think the article mischaracterizes them.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Connectivity and Chaos in Brazil