THE MEANING OF HUMAN EXISTENCE – By Philip Petraglia (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

When one thinks of goals to accomplish in life and how to accomplish them, the life of the eminent American biologist, Edward O Wilson, quickly comes to mind.

A world renowned biologist, Professor Wilson taught at Harvard for over three decades. Retired since 1996, Wilson continues to research and write and recently published “The Meaning of Human Existence”. Not a bad feat for a retired 85 year old scholar!

Born in 1929 into a socially conservative Christian family in Alabama, Professor Wilson long left his Christian faith and went on to concern himself with scientific discovery instead. A world expert in ants and other life forms, Wilson’s concern is with the preservation of biodiversity. He’s also known as the pioneer and father of “sociobiology”.

Winner of two Pulitzer prizes for non-fiction, Wilson seeks in his latest book to explain how humanity evolved. His answer is, given his academic credentials, based on science. But in addition, he calls for science and the humanities to join hands in explaining the mystery of why humans are the way they are. And more importantly, he sees the humanities as a way of keeping us human.

Like most Americans brought up in a political system where checks and balance are seen as a check on tyranny, Wilson believes the humanities can keep science in check when required, whether in regard to creating artificial life, genetic manipulation, or robotic technology. The question he asks which policymakers should do as well is the following: How much de we as a species want to retrofit the human genotype? Do we really want to strive for longer lives, enlarged memory, better vision, superior athletic ability? The list is endless and legislators should take note.

Wilson has spent a lifetime examining the natural world. As a Darwinian, he understands the process of how natural selection works. The human species unlike any other species on earth, he maintains, is about to abandon natural selection, the process that created us, in order to direct our own evolution by human selection. Genes and their prescribed traits can be what we desire. Wilson might have called it the ultimate consumer order in a consumer based world!

The humanities is a discipline that studies human culture and includes such disciplines as literature, philosophy, religion, history, communication studies, and law. For Wilson, the key is for the analytic powers of science to be joined with the introspective creativity of the humanities. Only then, he argues, can we truly understand the meaning of human existence.

As a non-believer, Wilson believes that religion rose from a belief in what he calls the “supernatural”. Religion, he argues, implies intention which in turn implies design. Human beings thus exist for a purpose because that’s how God designed us. Wilson laments humanity’s belief in a “supernatural design” and sees it as a sword used to keep people apart. He describes it as a form of fanaticism leading to conflict between different groups. He points to the current conflict between Shiites and Sunnis in the Middle East as one example.

Wilson argues that the principal driving force of mass murder is “lethal tribalism” and that the central rationale for lethal tribalism is sectarian religion and in particular, those faithful to different myths. I’ll come back to this later.

In contrast to religion, science takes a less charitable view of how humans evolved. For science, it is the accidents of history rather than the intentions of a designer that explains how humans evolved. There is no advance design, but instead overlapping networks of physical cause and effect.

Wilson sees liberation in not believing in “supernatural” entities. For starters, it means that we as a species are the authors of our own destiny: we can do either good or harm. We have only ourselves to blame or congratulate for all that is good and bad. Wilson laments habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, and population growth. He goes on to argue that only human beings can solve these problems. This, rather than a belief in God, is where our attention as a species should be.

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This book will no doubt upset many in the religious community. Nevertheless, Wilson raises some important issues with regard to what it means to be human that should serve to unite both believers and non-believers. His call for the humanities to be joined with science as a way of understanding human nature is a call to arms seeking to preserve that which makes us human.

In an age where universities across the Western World are cutting back on the humanities, both citizens and policymakers should seriously reconsider this short sighted policy. Do we really believe as citizens living in an advanced and civilized society that the primary purpose of universities is to produce consumers and workers?

The humanities can help us in so many ways. Let’s start with what Political Science brings to the table. In “The Social Conquest of Earth”, published in 2013, our ever busy octogenarian explains how social groups came together through cooperation to create the world we now live in. Political Science is, to a certain degree, the study of how groups cooperate in creating civil society. It’s the study of why and how policies are implemented, whether in regard to human rights legislation or the environment.

Law is the study of the rules we choose to live by. These rules represent our values and aspirations as a society, and they’re developed over centuries. The best way to fully appreciate a society’s legal system is to understand that society’s history. One is required to read Canadian history to fully understand why the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was incorporated into Canada’s constitution. Only then will one understand which groups were marginalized. The Charter is then put into perspective.

Literature in contrast is about the telling of a story which usually involves some form of human emotion. Love, anger, and betrayal are some of the topics discussed. People read novels, plays, poems, and short stories for a reason: they seek to understand why they and other people behave the way they do.

History has the enviable title of being the study of everything! Studying history allows us to understand where we come from and where we may possibly be going. One can study the history of religion, science, literature, political events, and so on. Is there a nobler field of study?

The study of religion of course also has its rightful place. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have roots in history. And religion can, at least in part, be used to understand why humans evolved the way they did.

As for Professor Wilson’s belief that religion is responsible for the greatest number of human atrocities, history shows he’s wrong. Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot were all secular dictators and non-believers responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

And as for the current conflict in the Middle East, an argument can be made that countries like Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are in the sad state they are today because of harsh rule by secular dictators who failed to establish civil society based on the rule of law. Professor Wilson is a great scientist but a great historian he’s not!

Interviewed recently on the Charlie Rose Show, Professor Wilson stated that he was realistic enough to know that he may not be around for much longer despite being in good health. He’s thus busy writing as much as he can while he still has the physical and mental ability to do so. One only hopes the Nobel Committee will reward him with a Nobel Prize before he leaves us.

WHAT THE CRISIS IN HONG KONG TELLS US ABOUT CHINA – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

The crisis in Hong Kong seems to be coming to an end and the level of violence has thankfully not escalated.

What’s so revealing, however, is not what the student protests tell us about Hong Kong, but what they say about mainland China, the future of China’s relationship with Taiwan, and how China might settle its territorial disputes with neighbouring countries over islands in the South China Sea.

We here in the West sometimes forget that creating a Liberal democracy means more than just building a modern economy based on free market values. It also involves creating a form of governance based on the Rule of Law, multi-party elections, and freedom of expression including a free press. China clearly fails on all points.

This whole dispute between the students and the country’s rulers all started when Hong Kong’s Chief Executive reneged on holding free and fair elections for selecting Hong Kong’s government, scheduled for 2017. The Chief Executive, no doubt under pressure from the country’s rulers in Beijing, decided that future candidates would first have to be approved by Beijing. No democracy works this way.

Hong Kong was re-united with China in 1997. Many in Hong Kong and the international community were nervous about this impending unification with China, so Beijing sought to reassure the investment community and financial markets by promising a one country, two systems policy.

In other words, Hong Kong would become part of China but it would be permitted to maintain its own form of governance and legal system.

This agreement has clearly been reneged on. What does this say about China other than the obvious fact that it fails to respect its own agreements?

For starters, China remains what it’s been for the last several decades since economic reforms were started: a soft authoritarian state where multi-party elections are outlawed. The lesson for Chinese citizens in the mainland is clear: Expect prosperity and personal liberty so long as the Communist Party’s right to rule is not questioned.

This crisis shows that the Rule of Law in China remains weak. Imagine if a similar crisis had erupted in a democratic country with a real constitution. The aggrieved state or territory would have appealed the unilateral decision by the national government to the country’s highest court. But China is not a constitutional democracy based on the Rule of Law. The students in Hong Kong don’t have a high court to appeal to that would hear this matter in a fair and impartial manner.

The Communist Party’s fears are easy to see. The last thing it wants is a model of democracy within its own borders. The advent of the internet simply makes communication between the country’s different regions too easy. Those seeking to promote democratic values would have a great model to borrow from.

The rulers in Beijing are reminding China’s various autonomous regions and special economic zones that “specialness” ends at the ballot box. The Uighurs and Tibetans, along with other religious and ethnic minority groups, were probably the first to get the message.

What does this mean for Hong Kong? Most economic experts point out that Hong Kong has been losing importance as a financial center ever since the rise of Shanghai. Hong Kong hasn’t yet become a second rate financial city or provincial backwater but its future remains uncertain.

It’s clear from news reports that most of the demonstrators were university students. Where then were the ordinary citizens? All signs indicate the students were not supported by a majority of Hong Kong’s population. Most of Hong Kong’s residents rightfully fear that alienating the national government in Beijing will only destroy Hong Kong’s economy.

This won’t be the first time that students and the rest of society disagree on how a country should develop.

The Taiwanese are no doubt monitoring this situation. A place of refuge for Chinese citizens fleeing the communist takeover of mainland China, Beijing continues to insist that Taiwan is part of China.

Taiwan however has slowly evolved from an authoritarian state to one based on the Rule of Law, capitalism, and democracy. Vigorous and hotly contested multi-party elections along with a dynamic press have become key features of Taiwan’s model of governance, something absent in China.

What then is the likelihood of China and Taiwan ever coming to an agreement over some form of constitutional union? China’s arbitrary decision to unilaterally change how Hong Kong governs itself plays into the hands of Taiwan nationalists who argue against unification with China. Unification, they maintain, would result in Taiwan giving up its hard fought democracy. Are they wrong?

Lastly, there’s the issue of the South China Sea. As discussed in a previous blog, China has territorial claims over a number of islands. These claims are contested by Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, and most importantly, Vietnam. What guarantees do these states have that any future agreement with China would be respected? Isn’t China’s cancellation of how elections are held in Hong Kong proof that any agreement with China is open to unilateral cancellation at Beijing’s discretion?

The rulers in China will no doubt win this battle. China will continue to develop its own form of civil society based on the Communist Party’s interpretation of Confucius principles. The model is there for all to see: capitalism and economic prosperity without democracy. Third world countries mired in poverty and violence are no doubt taking note.

Many in the West believe the Chinese model is doom to failure. Prosperous people, including the Chinese, will eventually clamor for basic democratic values. Only time will tell, but right now it seems China’s rulers have the majority of its people on board. And this will remain the case so long as the Communist Party continues to lift tens of millions of ordinary citizens out of poverty.

But prosperity isn’t the whole story. Chinese nationalism should never be underestimated, especially on the part of ordinary citizens. Chinese citizens in mainland China see the Hong Kong students as spoiled children who don’t know how good they have it. And many see any foreign criticism of how Beijing rules Hong Kong as a form of internal meddling.

The world has clearly understood the message. Unlike the situation with the Tiananmen Square massacres that took place in 1989, foreign governments have been very careful not to over criticize Beijing. No one wants to upset the world’s largest economy.

Was all this worth it for the Communist rulers in China? Doesn’t this ruin China’s reputation? Beijing doesn’t, from the look of things, seem to care. Nor did Vladimir Putin care about international opinion when he annexed Crimea or eastern Ukraine. Authoritarian rulers don’t seem to concern themselves with public relations.

China is clearly not evolving into a democracy as events in Hong Kong are proving. But China is not a mess. It isn’t Switzerland but it’s also not Iraq or Afghanistan. The ability of states to evolve into Liberal democracies takes decades if not centuries. Most countries in the West can attest to this phenomenon.

Critics from the West should keep this in mind. So should the students in Hong Kong. But there’s also a message China’s rulers should take from this crisis. Namely, that respecting agreements is expected of any modern state intent on acting globally.

THE SCOTTISH REFERENDUM & THE FUTURE OF UNITARY STATES – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA

Scotland had its much anticipated referendum on September 18. The no side took 55% of the vote which on the face it seems like a positive outcome for those promoting unity as opposed to separation. The results also brought relief to those of us who believe in federalism as a method of keeping together states divided by ethnicity and religion.

What was especially fascinating was the world-wide fascination and interest in the eventual outcome. The United Kingdom no doubt remains an important country. It’s a key player in the European Union despite its nationalistic outbursts with regard to Brussel’s powers, and it remains a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. But equally important, the United Kingdom remains one of the most democratic and prosperous liberal democracies in the world. Why then would a region of Britain attempt to end a 300 year old union? This is not an academic issue. There are fewer than 200 countries in the world, but there are thousands of ethnic groups speaking an equal amount of languages and dialects, not to mention divisions along race and religion. Practically every country has either some form of ethnic, racial, or religious division. Usually these minority groups are indigenous to a particular region of a country. The concern is obvious. Imagine if the yes side had prevailed setting in motion eventual separation from the United Kingdom. What message would this send to the Catalans in Spain or to Muslims in the Philippines? Would a yes side have revived the separatist movement in Quebec, Canada’s second most populous province? Would it encourage countries in Africa to dissolve along ethnic, religious, or tribal lines? The Democratic Republic of the Congo with its numerous ethnicities and tribes come to mind.

Why did 45% of Scots vote yes? To answer this question one has to start with demographics. The vote was extended to 16 year olds, and of course the overwhelming majority voted to secede while older votes generally speaking voted to stay in the union. Men also voted at a higher proportion than females to secede. Lastly, and most revealingly, there was a class dimension, with the middle and upper classes generally voting no, while those suffering economically such as the poor and the unemployed voting to secede. British prosperity is regionally based, much as it is in the United States, China, Canada, Italy, and a host of other countries. And in this sense Scottish nationalism brings into focus a new dimension to the whole concept of separatism. Yes the Scots are an ethnic group separate from the English, the Welsh, and the Irish in Northern Island, but the similarities whether in regard to language, religion, or lifestyle with the rest of the UK is similar and far outweigh the differences. In the end, this vote was a way for Scots at the lower end of the economic scale to voice their objections to what the United Kingdom has evolved into, a phenomenon that started with Margaret Thatcher’s dismantling of the social welfare system and privatization of state run companies in the 1970s. The UK many would argue, especially in the poorer regions of Scotland, has become Europe’s version of Singapore, a kind of city state run from London, with an economy based on finance and real estate, and where the social and economic elite are better acquainted with other financial centers like New York than they are with Glasgow or even Liverpool.

British governments have been attempting to deal with Scottish nationalism through what the Brits call devolution. It’s not quite federalism as we know it here in North America. Many skeptics call it Britain’s attempt to alleviate Scottish feelings by giving them a Parliament with few powers. They may or may not be right, but now the real struggle begins as the UK attempts to devise some form of federalism that might put to an end the issue of Scottish succession. Federalism in and by itself is not the problem. Federalist systems in general tend to be both more democratic and prosperous than their unitary counterparts. By federalist is meant true federalist countries rather than unitary states like Russia that are federalist in name only. The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, and Australia are all examples of prosperous and democratic federal states. The British government has numerous states that it can borrow ideas from. But the problems facing the British Parliament are numerous. For starters, it has operated as a unitary state since the union with Scotland was created back in the 18th century. The Brits, in other words, simply don’t have any experience with federalism. This is also true for the British courts which have largely operated within a unitary state. One can imagine British judges scrambling to buy Professor Lawrence Tribe’s book on US constitutional law, or better still, Peter Hogg’s treatise on Canada’s constitution, since the British form of government is closer to Canada’s. It would be as if federalist states like the United States and Canada were asked to turn themselves into unitary states.

The other issue is English nationalism which seems to be on the rise and which seems to be a reaction to both Britain’s place in the European Union and Scottish nationalism. Should England also be given its own Parliament? In other words, should Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England, each have their own local Parliament with equal & substantial powers? What would the effect be on the national government in London? Would it make the national government irrelevant as some traditionalists might argue? Or can a system be devised where each level of government would be given jurisdiction over matters that come naturally to it? The British have some extraordinary decisions to make with regard to how they’re likely to be governed for decades to come. Federalism isn’t created overnight. Do the British make piece meal changes or is some grand constitutional agreement negotiated between the different regions? The lack of British awareness with regard to how federalism works is obvious. Some English MPs believe for example that Scottish MPS should not be allowed to vote on matters affecting England like health care and education if Scotland is given special and exclusive powers over these two areas. I know of no federal system that works this way. Other English MPS think only certain regions in England like Cornwall should be provided with a regional Parliament. But why should one region be favoured over another?

The road ahead for the United Kingdom will be long and difficult, something which seems to have escaped Prime Minister David Cameron who naively believes that the issue of Scottish dependence has been settled for at least a generation. What then should the British government attempt to do in the next few years? The first goal is determine whether a form of federalism should be created for the entire country or whether the Scottish Parliament should be given more power over issues that matter to the Scots, like job creation, health care, social services, and education. The other equally important goal is to bring economic prosperity to regions of Scotland that never fully recovered from the British decision to end state subsidized industries and the social welfare system that went with it. History shows that federalism is the best model for protecting minority rights. Unitary states will likely become a thing of the past as minority groups around the world begin to fight for their rights as separate entities within a bigger whole. In conclusion, some form of federalism along with prosperity should keep the UK and other countries from splitting apart. A unitary model with regional disparities won’t cut it for either Britain or other countries divided by ethnicity or religion.

WHY NATIONS FAIL: THE ORIGINS OF POWER, PROSPERITY AND POVERTY – By Philip Petraglia

Co-authored in 2012 by two U.S.-based academics, Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT, and James A. Robinson, a political scientist from Harvard University, “Why Nations Fail” is an ambitious book that seeks to explain why some nations fail and others succeed. The basic premise to their thesis is simple: Inclusive institutions leads to democracy and prosperity while institutions that exclude large segments of society from political and economic inclusion leads to authoritarianism and lack of prosperity for the majority of citizens.

The authors do a masterful job of explaining why inclusive institutions are a necessity for creating free and prosperous societies, but less so in explaining whether considerations such as culture and geography were and continue to be important factors in creating inclusive institutions.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CREATING INCLUSIVE INSTITUTIONS

As the authors correctly point out, inclusive institutions allow competing groups to come together, giving everyone a stake in the nation’s political and economic system. This keeps any one class or interest group from dominating the system at the expense of other groups. Thus in England, to take one example, the Glorious Revolution (1688) meant that the monarchy would be obliged to share power with other segments of society. This did not turn England into full democracy, but the road to liberal democracy was slowly being built. There would be further reforms down the road, especially in the 19th century with the passage of numerous reform bills starting with the Reform Bill of 1832 (extending the right to vote to a greater segment of society).

Inclusive institutions also lead to inclusive economies. And as more groups are brought into the economy, these groups eventually gain political representation. The benefits of building inclusive institutions are numerous. Education is promoted and spread to the masses, the rule of law is developed which means no ruler is above the law, but equally important, the rule of law also creates contractual and property rights for all citizens regardless of class. All this leads to technological and scientific progress as citizens seeking to become the next Thomas Edison or Graham Bell use their ingenuity to make personal fortunes. These inventions in turn serve society as a whole. Think of what electricity did for America or steel for Great Britain. Inclusive institutions also make credit available to everyone through laws creating financial institutions.

Most importantly, the authors point put that in societies with inclusive institutions, the state has a monopoly over violence with regard to its territory. Citizens are not permitted to have private militias as was the case in Lebanon during that country’s long civil war. Citizens are expected to redress personal disputes before the courts and political process. Individuals enjoy living in a safe environment, which in turn permits civil society to develop.

The authors correctly stress the role that a free press plays in promoting inclusive institutions. We see it in the American Revolution where the press played a pivotal role in promoting democratic governance and self-rule, to take but one example. A free press brings to light abuses by the government, not to mention abuses by segments of society pursing self-interest at the expense of the greater good.

Lastly, the book correctly points out that building inclusive institutions takes decades of political development, if not centuries. It took, for example, almost a century to end slavery in the US, while most women in the West were only given the right to vote in the 20th century.

THE NATURE OF EXTRACTIVE INSTITUIONS

The authors explain that extractive institutions are the complete opposite of inclusive institutions. Extractive institutions are about exploiting a nation’s wealth for the benefit of a small group of people: The greatest good for the fewest members of society. The purpose of extractive institutions is to maintain political and economic power in the hands of the few, what we often refer to as elites. These elite groups include Monarchs (Saudi Arabia) and Communist parties (contemporary North Korea and the former USSR), to name just two. Other examples of extractive institutions include Latin America, where European elites excluded indigenous groups and descendants of African slaves from participating in the political and economic process through institutional exclusion. These groups were in effect marginalized and denied basic rights like redress before the courts for brutal injustices committed against them. And of course they were excluded from the political process all together making them second class citizens in their own countries. This unfortunate phenomenon was also true in Africa where European colonizers exploited the continent’s abundance of natural resources while reducing the local populations to near starvation. Sadly and tragically, these European rulers would eventually be replaced by African despots who would go on to behave even more badly than their colonial counterparts. These homemade dictators, many of whom were educated in the West, would continue the exploitation of the many by the few but for their own personal gains, in other words: A “Made in Africa” kind of exploitation. In the end, Africans continue to suffer because of the lack of inclusive institutions that neither tribal nor European colonial rulers failed to develop. But as the authors point out, there were exceptions, Botswana being the most impressive. This country in southern Africa has a tradition of inclusive tribal institutions which explains why Botswana is today one of Africa’s most democratic and prosperous countries. But not only did Botswana have inclusive institutions, it also had brilliant tribal leaders who made a deal with their British. The Brits were basically permitted to build their coveted railway while leaving the local inhabitants a free hand in how they ran their affairs. These inclusive tribal institutions would then be incorporated into a free and independent Botswana once the Europeans were kind enough to leave.

But extractive institutions did not just develop in Africa and Latin America. The United States had their own extractive institutions throughout much of its history and right up right up till the mid-20th century. Starting with slavery, blacks were excluded from America’s political and economic systems whether as slaves or free citizens. This exclusion continued right up till the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, something for which the Johnson administration should be forever remembered and praised for. Slavery, meanwhile, was abolished with the passage of the 13th amendment in 1865, but the southern states that made up the old Confederacy would subsequently pass what came to be known as the “Jim Crow” laws. These laws effectively denied blacks basic human rights in both the political and social spheres, in effect excluding them from participation in civil society. Call it American Apartheid as opposed to American Beauty. This situation would only start to change in the 1960s once the US Supreme Court finally rendered decisions effectively outlawing discrimination. This legal development coupled with the Federal Government’s courageous (LBJ again) decision to enforce the Supreme Court’s cases on expanding civil rights meant that blacks would finally be included in America’s democracy as equal citizens.

THE ROLE OF CULTURE AND GEOGRAPHY

Let’s first look at the issue of culture. The authors essentially maintain that culture is unimportant in determining whether societies become democratic and prosperous. They point out that societies that were once authoritarian and poor are today increasingly becoming prosperous and democratic. Brazil is one example. This book has a feel good element to it by de-emphasizing any role that culture might have. There’s a certain egalitarian spirit to this work. But unfortunately the issue of culture is not a topic that the authors spend much time on. This does not mean however that they’re wrong. It’s very possible that culture plays a minor role. But the authors could have provided more examples to prove their point. Perhaps this could be done in a 2nd edition or in a new title all together. Wanting to believe something is not the same as actual evidence.

The issue of culture raises many questions. Why for example is northern Europe so much more prosperous than southern Europe? Of course one can’t talk about culture without bringing up the thorny issue of religion. Why for example are Middle Eastern societies lagging behind in political and economic development in comparison to their Asian counterparts? Is it because of sectarian divisions, especially between Shias and Sunnis? Or is it because of a lack of political leadership? Are Buddhist societies more prone to developing inclusive institutions? The Cultural Revolution in China led to mass starvation and slaughter of millions. But China changed, at least economically. And countries like South Korea and Taiwan have gone from authoritarian systems to free and democratic ones that are among the most prosperous in the world. Why were these two states able to build inclusive institutions compared to their counterparts in the Middle East?

Another sensitive issue not touched upon by the authors is the question of ethnic homogeneity. Is it easier for states with homogeneous populations to build inclusive institutions? South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all have relatively homogeneous populations, and all three have experienced economic and political development on a scale that makes them among the wealthiest nations in the world. A counter argument could be made, however, if we look at other homogeneous nations like Albania and North Korea. All two of these states are relatively poor despite being ethnically homogeneous.

Let’s now talk about geography. Are countries blessed with natural resources actually cursed? One has only to only think of states like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, where economic dependence on commodities has led to neither democracy nor prosperity for the many. In fact, successful states like Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are all lacking in natural resources. Did this mean that the rulers of these different countries had to develop their respective societies’ human resources instead? The authors don’t discuss the issue of natural resources and what role it plays in the development of inclusive institutions. Didn’t blood diamonds in Africa allow African dictators to enrich themselves at the expense of creating inclusive institutions?

In his excellent book called “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, UCLA anthropologist Jared Diamond presents the argument that a people’s location on a map has major importance for how it developed. Some states are lucky. They’re created in parts of the world that have rich soils, forests, and an abundance of fresh water. But what happens to societies that developed in semi-arid parts of the world, whether in Australia with regard to the aboriginals or in regard to sub-Sahara Africa? This is something that the authors fail to discuss in any significant manner. Isn’t it possible that societies cursed with bad soils and climate faced an even bigger challenge when trying to build inclusive institutions? Does the presence of bad soils and lack of water still continue to hamper the creation of inclusive institutions?

The other issue completely ignored by the authors is any consideration of location. Is it possible that where a country is located influences whether it develops inclusive or extractive institutions? Does being next door to Russia explain why Ukraine has not become as prosperous and democratic as Poland, a country that borders the EU? And is it possible for a state like Lebanon to develop inclusive institutions when it’s next door to a failing and disintegrating state like Syria?

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The authors point out that while China has successfully used extractive institutions these past 4 decades to develop its economy and lift millions out of poverty, prosperity cannot continue without the Communist Party relinquishing some of its power by developing inclusive institutions. In other words, the Communist leadership needs to introduce democratic reforms as we experience them here in the West. Is it possible however that there exists a different model? The Singapore model is what the respected US journalist Robert D. Kaplan calls soft authoritarianism. This model of governance is based on the principle that all ethnic groups have a place in a nation’s economic and political development. Singapore is today one of the wealthiest states in the world. The three major ethnic groups all share in the nation’s prosperity and participate in the nation’s political system. Kaplan even believes that this soft authoritarianism as he calls it may eventually lead to liberal democracy. Is this not quite possibly the model that China might end up following? Or are the authors simply too biased by western values to even consider this? In any event, Singapore is not even discussed by the authors in any significant manner. As the authors correctly point out, African societies (Botswana) with a tradition of inclusive institutions are currently experiencing democracy and economic prosperity. Is it possible that the Singaporean model is an example of inclusive institutions indigenous to Asia that developing countries can or should borrow from?

Another issue the authors should raise in any sequel is to what degree societies with inclusive institutions experience decay. The United States Congress immediately comes to mind. Once known as the people’s house, the majority of its members are today millionaires supported and harassed by legions of well financed lobbyists representing the interests of special interest groups. Or should we call them elites? Another example is the near financial meltdown almost experienced in the first decade of the 21st century. How was it that the media was oblivious to the events leading up to this crisis? The authors stress the importance of a free and independent media in building inclusive institutions while failing to recognize that today’s media has become both sterile and clueless.

The authors no doubt hope this book can serve as a roadmap for nations seeking to become more prosperous and democratic. They rightfully point out that building inclusive institutions takes time. Perhaps a page or two should have been dedicated to the last US invasion of Iraq and the chaos that ensued and that only seems to be getting worse. Iraq seems to be disintegrating because the nation is divided along sectarian lines that make building inclusive institutions extremely difficult. In other words, it’s difficult to export inclusive institutions though not necessarily impossible.

This book should be read by policymakers, politicians, and citizens interested in understanding how societies either prosper or decay, but only if readers consider all the questions left unanswered by the authors. At well over 500 pages, this book is a long read and at times repetitive. The authors will hopefully produce a sequel that will attempt to answer some of the questions that remain unanswered. In particular, the following three questions needs to be addressed. Firstly, were geography and culture historically responsible for preventing societies from developing inclusive institutions? Secondly, assuming the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do geography and culture still matter in the 21st century what with the advent of science and technology? And lastly, what does it take to develop inclusive institutions in societies divided by ethnicity, religion, and tribalism?

The Repercussions Of Shooting Down A Malaysian Airliner – By Philip Petraglia

Last week a Malaysian Airliner was shot down over eastern Ukraine killing well over 200 passengers. The question everyone is attempting to answer is who could have done such a horrible act. Most seem to think ethnic Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine backed by Russia are responsible. The sad fact however is that no one at this point really knows. Let’s then look at what’s at stake for some of the parties concerned.

For the Ukrainian government this is simply more evidence that it does not have total control over all of its territory. Since Russian speaking separatists seeking closer ties with Russia took over eastern Ukraine, the national government in Kiev has for the most part done very little to take back control of this region. It simply doesn’t have the military might to do so. Not only are the separatists armed by the Putin regime, Russia would in an event likely intervene militarily should the Ukrainian army ever prevail over the separatists. In short, eastern Ukraine is essentially run by what many diplomats and politicians including US Secretary of State John Kerry are calling thugs. Of course what makes this situation troubling are that these thugs also possess anti-aircraft missiles capable of shooting planes down from 33,000 feet in the air, as happened last week with Flight 17. Sadly, as human corpses remain on Ukrainian soil, Russian backed rebels rather than the Ukrainian government control events on the ground. Not only have the separatists taken possession of the black boxes, they also control the corpses much to the chagrin of the victims’ families. Imagine a situation where a plane is shot over American or Canadian soil and some rebel separatist group takes charge of the situation at the same time that it’s accused of having committed such a heinous crime.

Many blame Russia, and more particularly, Vladimir Putin, for the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner. Russia after all armed the rebel separatists with a variety of sophisticated weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles. But let’s give Putin the benefit of the doubt and believe that he never intended for the rebels to shoot down a commercial airliner. Assuming the separatists did shoot down the airliner for some inexplicable reason, Putin should at least be responsible for not controlling what can only be called criminal behaviour. These are after all his thugs. What then is Putin’s next step, other than blaming the Ukrainian government for having the audacity to try and keep the country’s territorial integrity intact? Will Putin seek to distance himself from the separatists? Will he continue to blame the Ukrainian government in Kiev? As it now stands, Putin and Russia are guilty by association. Many will argue this horrible this event would never have occurred had eastern Ukraine not become a war zone.

Assuming the Russian separatists are responsible, a major question becomes why? Were they attempting to blame the Ukrainian government, thus discrediting Kiev in the eyes of the international community? Is it possible that some rogue element among the separatists is responsible, or was there some elaborate plan put together to create an international incident? As it now stands, no one, including the separatists, is taking responsibility. Public Relations counts for something even in times of tragedy!

The European Union like the rest of the international community is of course horrified. The question then becomes how should the EU respond? We still don’t know who shot the airliner down, but the media, experts, and politicians all seem to be pointing the finger at both the rebels and their supporters in the Russian government. Should the EU wait for more proof before imposing real sanctions on Russia? And what sanctions can the EU impose on Russia given that the former’s economy is reliant on the latter for its energy supplies? Germany is the engine that propels the EU’s economy and Germany’s economy runs on Russian gas and oil. Sanctions would lead to a trade war that the Germans, EU, and Russians can’t afford. The US meanwhile also has few options it can exercise against the Russians. This likely explains why President Obama is so cautious in his approach to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. What for example can the US do to help the Ukrainian government preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity? Ukraine is neither in NATO nor a European Union member state, but it does neighbour Russia. Will US support for the Ukrainians only make the situation worse and give Putin a reason for escalating the violence in eastern Ukraine? And assuming America does very little, does it end up looking weak in the face of Russian aggression?

So far we’ve talked about the political repercussions. But what does this tragedy say about the future of air travel? The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a UN agency operating out of Montreal, is responsible along with its 191 signatory states for devising and implementing legally- binding civil aviation regulations. These regulations include standard practices for air navigation, infrastructure, flight inspection, and prevention of unlawful interference. A question that needs to be answered is why a commercial airliner was permitted to fly over a disputed territory and war zone like eastern Ukraine where armed rebels are known to possess anti-aircraft missiles. Apparently Malaysia Airlines was using a route commonly used by other airliners. This begs the question: Should the general public take for granted that the actors who run commercial aviation know what they’re doing?

The fact is that ICAO and its members states, along with commercial airliners, all owe the general public due diligence to make certain that passengers are transported safely to their points of destination. The airline industry can’t solve geopolitical problems or civil wars but it can act in a sensible manner so as to provide its customers with some common sense safety. Making it a rule that a commercial airliner is not allowed to fly over a war zone where rebels are known to possess the ability to shoot down commercial aircraft seems like a sensible rule that ICAO and the commercial airline industry should adopt. Those involved in the commercial airline industry should be astute enough to re-direct flights to safer air routes. Since no one in his right mind would encourage anyone to drive through rebel held areas in eastern Ukraine, the question becomes why would anyone encourage a commercial airliner to do the same through its air space?

In the end we may never know who shot down the Malaysian airliner. But ICAO and the commercial airline industry can at least come up with rules to make commercial aviation safer regardless of whether geopolitical issues and civil wars are ever resolved.

THE COMING CONFLICT IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA – By Philip Petraglia

As news comes in of Vietnamese workers rampaging through factories in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) thought (falsely) to be owned by Chinese companies, the importance of the South China Sea suddenly comes into sharper focus. This large body of water is important for three reasons: 

1. It is home to several groups of islands believed to possess significant oil and gas deposits; 
2. China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and the Philippines all have some claims to these islands;  
3. One third of global maritime traffic flows through the South China Sea, including two thirds of South Korea’s energy supplies, nearly 60% of Japan’s and Taiwan’s energy supplies, and 80% of China’s crude oil imports. 

THE ELEPHANT IN THE CHINA SHOP

Published in April 2014, Robert D. Kaplan’s “Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific” discusses the coming conflict in this region as China seeks to spread its influence in an area it considers its own, much as the US considered the Caribbean Sea to be its own in the 19th and 20th centuries (Monroe Doctrine). Kaplan shows how the West’s preoccupation with tragic events in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and Afghanistan diverts attention away from an area of Asia where future wars may eventually erupt as small and medium sized states seek to keep Chinese imperial ambitions in check. Of course none of the countries in the region can contain China by itself so two options present themselves: an alliance with the United States and multilateral alliances between states in the region. For example, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is an economic alliance that has a larger economy than that of India’s. Could ASEAN one day become more like the EU and NATO while forming an even stronger alliance with the US? As Kaplan rightly points out, Americans are growing weary of engaging in future conflicts, having exhausted themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, while the US spends more on its military than any other country, defence spending is decreasing as attention shifts to domestic concerns. Lastly, America is located thousands of miles away from the South China Sea. China meanwhile faces it. One has the advantage of proximity. Geography, Kaplan reminds us, still matters. America, in contrast, has the luxury of distance which however makes it difficult to respond in timely fashion should conflicts arise. In any case, while America’s navy is spread throughout the world, China’s navy is concentrated in Asia. China’s concern is not so much with dominating the world as it is with reigning supreme over its region. China, Kaplan reminds us, is a great civilization going back thousands of years, and except for the last 150 years, has been a great military and economic power in its own right. Dominating the South China Sea would allow China to reassert this role as a great power and keep the West from ever again dominating the region as it did through much of the 20th century. Let’s now look at what’s at stake for every country in the region.

VIETNAM

With a population of 90 million and an economy that has been growing at an astounding rate for the past ten years, Vietnam remains China’s most formidable foe. Vietnam borders China and the two countries hostility towards one another makes US-Mexican relations look like a love fest! The fact that Vietnam even exists is a major miracle, especially when you consider that it has been invaded 17 times by China over the past few centuries. Vietnam’s principal aim then is to check Chinese expansion in the region, especially with regard to the Parcel and Spratly Islands which Vietnam claims. But for the Vietnamese the dispute in the South China Sea isn’t just about territorial disputes; it’s also about protecting global maritime commerce. The Vietnamese are a practical people as the US found out during the Vietnam War, and the Vietnamese clearly understand that keeping China at bay means entering into an alliance with the US, a former enemy with which it fought a long war. As Kaplan reminds us, winners don’t have a chip on their shoulders and since Vietnam did win that war (or at least the North Vietnamese did), the Vietnamese are not hesitant to enter into an alliance with the US. And lastly, Kaplan rightly points out that should Vietnam falter and give in to Chinese expansion, this would only encourage China to dominate the entire region regardless of International Law.

MALAYSIA

Unlike Vietnam, an ethnically homogeneous nation (except for its marginalized minorities), Malaysia is ethnically diverse and faces different challenges. The most affluent large nation in the region, Malaysia is about 60% Malay Muslim. Ethnic Chinese and Indians make up the rest of the population. Relations Between ethnic Malays (most of whom are Muslim) and the Chinese and Indian minorities are not always good, but compared to the situation in the Middle East, Malaysia like Singapore offers hope to the idea that diversity can thrive in the developing world and not lead to blood shed as we currently see in Iraq. The father of modern Malaysia is Mahathir bin Mohamad, an autocrat in power from 1981-2003. He created what could best be described as a limited democracy coupled with soft authoritarianism. It’s not Switzerland but it’s also not Iraq or Syria where sectarian violence dominates. Mahathir created a system where Muslim Malays control the bureaucracy, armed forces, judiciary, and other pillars of the state. The Chinese thrive in economic matters and remain the nation’s entrepreneurs. Unemployment remains relatively low, half the country is now middle class, and 70% of the population lives in urban areas. In addition, no communal violence between these different ethnic and religious groups has occurred over the past 40 years! Malaysia’s lack of a strong national identity means that it is not anti-Chinese to the degree that the Vietnamese with their history and strong national identity are. Nevertheless, Malaysia, after Singapore, remains America’s most reliable ally. Malaysia’s economy is based on trade and making sure that Uncle Sam sticks around to keep the sea lanes open to international trade is important to them.

SINGAPORE

A tiny city state with a population of 3.3 million, Singapore is in many ways Asia’s version of Israel. Not only is it evolving into a dynamic democracy and reliable US ally, it also has a sizeable Air Force (equivalent to Australia’s) and sees defence spending as essential to its survival. Singapore is a multiethnic meritocracy created, conceived, and built by one great visionary leader: Lee Kuan Yew. A trained lawyer, Lee Kuan was Prime Minster from 1959-1990 and instituted what Kaplan aptly describes as a system of “enlightened authoritarianism” that kept the different ethnic groups from slaughtering one another while promoting economic growth and educating its citizenry. As happens with nations possessed with few natural resources, Lee Kuan had the wisdom to develop the nation’s human resources instead. English was made the national language, thus serving to unify the country’s Chinese, Malay, and Indian communities. Think about how enlightened this policy was. Ethnic Chinese are in the majority, but Lee Kuan, an ethnic Chinese himself, understood the importance of being magnanimous and treating all groups, regardless of majority or minority status, on an equal footing. Leaders from the developing world should take note. Imagine if leaders in the Middle East were to learn from such policies! Singapore is about trade so their concern is with keeping the sea lanes open to trade and communication. This means an alliance with the US. In other words, the ever pragmatic Singaporeans understand that defending global trade means protecting the sea lanes which only the US navy can do. Singapore thus remains America’s most reliable ally in the region. And like Israel, it spends heavily on national defence so as to send a clear message to foes (China) and allies (US and other states in the region) that it takes its survival and trade interests seriously.

THE PHILIPPINES

To understand what went wrong in the Philippines, we need to review what went right in Malaysia and Singapore, for the Philippines remains economically impoverished, with corrupt and ineffective political institutions, and a population that is largely uneducated. Asian dynamism has, in other words, largely bypassed the Philippines. The Philippines is what much of the developing world is: divided between the rich and the poor with hardily a middle class to speak of. The Philippines is the most corrupt nation in the region, and has Asia’s worse economy despite having the world’s 12th largest population. What then did Malaysia and Singapore do right? Kaplan points out that both these countries had great leaders who brought order and authority to their societies while providing its citizens with sufficient food, warmth, shelter and security. As Maslow’s hierarchy of needs would suggest, basic needs must be met before individuals and societies can progress to the next stage of development. True, both Singapore and Malaysia practiced a form of soft authoritarianism. But leaders like Lee Kuan and Mahathir were different from the authoritarian brutes who ruled in much of the Middle East like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Assads in Syria. Both Asian leaders were able to plant the seeds of responsible government and civil society thus leading to what we have today: limited but effective democracy that may one day evolve into a full blown liberal democracy. This then, is what the Philippines never had: a visionary leader who could take care of the nation’s basic needs while promoting a pro-business and dynamic economy. What then to make of the Philippines? As Kaplan points out, it is the weakest of its allies in this region and by far the most vulnerable to Chinese expansion, something not lost on China’s rulers. The irony then is that the Philippines is re-establishing close military ties with the US, its former colonial ruler. In the end, that disorganized nation with claims to the Spratly islands and Scarborough Shoal is in a precarious position vis-à-vis China and can only keep the Chinese at bay through a US based alliance. This however is made difficult by that nation’s lack of political and economic development. The Philippines is, to put it charitably, a bad investment at this point in time.

TAIWAN

Taiwan is what many hope China eventually becomes: democratic and prosperous. Established in 1947 by Chiang Kai-Shek as his forces fled mainland China, Taiwan is another one of those Asian tigers with few natural resources that was wise enough to develop its human resources instead. Like Singapore and Malaysia, Taiwan was ruled by a soft authoritarian ruler but has evolved into a dynamic liberal democracy with an educated workforce that has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Taiwan is, of course, a complicated issue, as President Nixon’s trip to China in the 1970s demonstrated. Both Taiwan and China claim to be the legitimate representatives of the Chinese people, and any mention of Taiwanese independence is seen by Beijing as an attempt at secession from China. There’s also a dispute over the Pratas Islands. But Taiwan has more serious concerns: namely, that China will one day seek forced unification by militarily invading Taiwan. This island state thus remains solidly allied with the US while remaining committed to building up its military to the point where a Chinese invasion remains unthinkable.

CHINA

China, as Kaplan makes clear, is a complicated place. It is destined to become the world’s biggest economy and closest rival to the US in both economic and military matters. China’s defence spending has been rising significantly as it continues to spend billions on warships and submarines. But much of this spending and posturing on the South China Sea is based on continued Chinese economic growth. What happens then if China’s economic growth begins to stagnate? Is it possible China might one day implode from within? China’s rulers base their legitimacy not on spreading democracy but on providing prosperity through economic growth: jobs and prosperity in place of democracy. For Kaplan, then, it’s not clear who will eventually come ahead. It’s possible for example that China might in fact continue to prosper, and that its growing and educated middle class may demand the same democratic freedoms enjoyed by ethnic kin in Taiwan. Isn’t that what one can expect from globalization? But as Kaplan points out, more democracy can actually lead to more conflict, as the masses may be more prone to nationalism than its intellectual, business, and political elites. Already we see states in the South China Sea (except for Malaysia) playing domestic politics with their claims. The islands in this region are small, and many of the claims may seem ridiculous, but as Aristotle famously wrote, conflicts arise not over small things but from small things. In addition, neither is International Law able to solve the conflicting disputes as there is no mechanism for imposing any legal decision.

CONCLUSION

Recent headlines in the New York Times say it all: “China Flexes Its Muscles in Dispute With Vietnam” (May 8), “China’s Monroe Doctrine” (May 8), “Trouble in the South China Sea” (May 9), “Anger Grows in Vietnam Over Dispute With China” (May 14), “Anti-Foreigner Violence Turns Deadly and Spreads in Vietnam (May 15), and “Philippines Challenges China Over Disputed Atoll”.

As Kaplan’s book makes clear, foreign affairs continues to be influenced by geography and history. A country’s neighbourhood still matters as does whatever historical enmity remains between neighbouring states. Internal political and economic development also matters. Nations that are politically stable and economically prosperous with an educated workforce and a vibrant civil society based on the Rule of Law do better at protecting their interests on the international stage. Whether war breaks out in the South China Sea will depend on many factors. Will the smaller and middle states like Singapore and Malaysia continue to produce responsible leaders reluctant to give in to nationalistic feelings? Will these states continue to experience relative harmony between its various religious and ethnic communities? Will China act responsibly or throw its weight around like an Elephant in a China Shop as its economic clout continues to grow? Might China not itself become democratic like its neighbours someday? And if China does implode because of economic, political, or environmental problems, will its regions become more important at the expense of the central government in Beijing? America also has an important role to play. Will a weakened America with a poor economy and a dwindling middle class care about what happens in a far-away region, or will American voters insist that the nation become more isolationist and concentrate on domestic concerns? America also has alliances in Europe and concerns in the Middle East but defence spending is going south. Does America have the resources to be everywhere at once? Does it even want to be the world’s policeman? Just as importantly, does America have a plan for protecting its allies in the South China Sea while not unduly alienating China? America must understand that China also has legitimate interests and that it shouldn’t permit any of its allies to drag it into an unnecessary conflict. What then should be America’s role? As a country whose economy is based on capitalism, it should be to keep the sea lanes open so that global trade can continue to flow to everyone’s benefit. It should let China know that it will defend its allies if need be, but it must also let its allies understand that they are expected to behave responsibly, and that some kind of compromise has to be make with regard to the islands in dispute. Giving in to nationalism is not something that is in these countries’ self-interest. In the end, everyone has much to lose from any future conflict. This is something the Chinese need to understand. Does Beijing want China to become a respected nation or a rogue nation like Russia as Vladimir Putin seems to be intent on accomplishing? Perhaps an international conference can be held to settle the dispute over these islands, one that would show China the respect it deserves as an economic superpower while reassuring the smaller states that the Rule of Law applies with regard to their region. It may be time for the global community to understand that there’s a big problem looming and that some kind of discussion should be had at the international level before events spiral out of control. Such a conference would likely not find a definitive solution, but it would at least get the global community to pay more attention. And, it might also provide the main actors with a forum for talking to one another in an intelligent (hopefully!) manner.

Last week’s headlines in the New York Times seem to suggest that China is pursuing its own version of the Monroe Doctrine in Asia. This doctrine was formulated and used by the US to dominate the Caribbean and Latin America in the 19th century by ridding it of European influence. It would be folly for China to pursue this policy for many reasons. For starters, all these states will look to the US for assistance, and interestingly, at a time when America is seeking to reduce its overseas obligations and burdens. It would indeed be ironic if China’s actions had the adverse effect of strengthening hardliners (Republicans) in the US who believe Washington has gone too far in defence cuts. America will no doubt seriously re-think its place in the world if China begins to behave irresponsibly in the South China Sea. Secondly, China trades with its neighbours and it’s probably not a good idea to upset or destroy your client! There will be an economic price to pay should China forcibly take these disputed islands over. Thirdly, any Chinese aggression might force ASEAN to become more like NATO and the EU than a glorified Chamber of Commerce! Already other Asian countries like Japan are talking about re-interpreting its constitution so as to allow for a more aggressive show of military force, especially with regard to assisting regional allies.

In the end, it’s not in the world’s interest to have two economic giants like China and the US in conflict, especially one that might involve some kind of military confrontation. American and Chinese interests have become intertwined through trade and loans and any future military conflict would create chaos in global markets. This is something which leaders in both the US and China need to understand and explain to their citizens and allies before it’s too late.