"Will the world be okay?" - Welcome to a new decade full of crises

The following was posted on January 13th :

美国和英国开始对也门胡塞武装“安萨尔真主”目标进行打击。此外，美国已经要求伊朗释放他们扣押的商船。更多武装行动的可能性在增加。世界经济以海运为基础。海运以海事法为基础。"安萨尔-真主”宣布了一场几乎无限的海上战争，危及了世界经济，违反了海事法。从这个意义上说，一场惩罚性的远征是不可避免的。打击行动什么时候开始以及持续多久其实并不重要，这里的关键在于，以往被视为不可侵犯的、极少被破坏的规则的可持续性问题，这具有全球意义。胡塞武装领导人认为在如此重要的航线上海盗行为会肆无忌惮，这一点相当奇怪。更奇怪的是，伊朗没有向胡塞武装解释，长期扮演"血腥船长"的角色是充满危险的。尤其，中国也没有向伊朗转达其希望安抚合作伙伴的愿望。可能他们都希望利用也门来牵制美国？但坦率地说，无论是伊朗还是中国，都没有参与如此高水平博弈的经验，更不用说任何积极的经验了。

也门在许多方面都是一个值得关注的国家。一般来说这个国家被分为两个部分（东部的第三个沙漠部分由于人口极少，对国家的进程几乎没有实际影响），这是有历史原因的—— 也门北部是奥斯曼帝国的一部分，南部（又称亚丁保护国）是英国属地的一部分。也门作为单一国家的存在时间相对较短，这没有能在南北之间建立起稳定的联系。北也门主要是什叶派-扎伊迪派，南也门主要是逊尼派，在与苏联合作实现工业化之后，逊尼派和宗教认同在总体上更多地成为南也门人的文化传统。近40%的人口认为自己是东正教徒，但实际上只有2%-3% 的真正信教。这个状况跟俄罗斯相似。 总体而言南也门已经很接近一个古典城市文明，这在很大程度上得到了出生率的证明。而北方则是一个典型的传统文明，在社会分层方面具有强烈的部落主义倾向，出生率较高，并试图建立一个部落国家。事实上，安萨尔真主运动的目标就是效仿20世纪60年代初也门北部的国家形态，建立也门伊玛目教派。应该说，这在现代世界几乎是不现实的。20世纪有过许多建立纯部落国家的尝试都以失败告终：隆达部落首领莫伊兹·冲伯在前比属刚果领土上建立的加丹加只维持了三年，伊格博部落在尼日利亚领土上建立的比亚法拉共和国也只维持了三年，安哥拉卡宾达飞地的斗争和埃塞俄比亚奥罗莫部落建立部落国家的尝试都是徒劳无功的。时间就这样过去了。从这个意义上说，即使在也门北部也从未与部落联盟结盟的胡塞武装企图以武力建立他们自己的部落国家，是注定要失败的。国家不可能仅仅靠暴力来治理，而非暴力的方法在纯部落国家与其他部落成员的关系中肯定行不通。从这个意义上说，沙特的经验比较独特，拉希德部落酋长在第三次尝试中成功地建立了一个国家，但为此他们不得不与阿拉伯半岛主要领土上的所有其他主要部落酋长分享权力，这最终导致建立了一个畸形且笨重的国家机器，其中的平衡极具冲突性。沙特最终还是成功了，尽管花了近三百年。没有其他成功案例了，尤其是在现代。也门只能在南部建立一个稳定的国家形态，南部已经具备建国的先决条件，但在与北方的对抗中，南方在资源上处于劣势。因此，也门内战的任何一方都无法取得胜利，形成了僵持局面。没有任何一方的明确胜利内战就不会结束—— 妥协是不可能的。外部介入（就也门而言，沙特、阿联酋和伊朗形成了三方对抗的平衡）对延长冲突起到了一定作用，但主要原因是这场冲突不可能在内部解决。因此它将是非常非常漫长的。此外，关于伊朗可能关闭霍尔木兹海峡的传说是非常难以置信的。这甚至不是说伊朗是不是担心或者有多担心这种行动遭到军事回应。伊朗经济严重依赖石油出口。其依赖程度甚至远远超过俄罗斯。因此，关闭波斯湾的石油贸易将首先关闭伊朗自己的龙头。这将意味着伊朗整个经济的迅速崩溃，甚至会立刻产生连带效应。以伊朗目前的社会状况来说，崩溃有一触即发之势。此外，别忘了石油是伊斯兰革命卫队将军们的大生意。从真正意义上说，他们就是靠出口赚钱的，伊斯兰革命卫队实际上拥有伊朗所有的出口产业。当然，他们是意识形态的家伙（至少在口头上），但在个人钱包的问题上他们不允许任何妥协。总之，对切断海湾地区石油供应的担忧不是个问题。虽然各种表演都有可能出现，撕破衬衫大喊“别拦我！”或者随便喊什么都行，到处贴满圣战旗子，开着装有机关枪的小船到处乱窜，等等，搞全民运动，都不会在意料之外。

There have been reports one after another that shipping companies have refused to transport goods, including oil and natural gas, along the regular route from Asia to Europe via the Suez Canal due to attacks by Yemen's Houthi armed forces on merchant ships.

The situation is becoming increasingly tense. The Red Sea is becoming the red button for a new war, this time involving not proxy armies but the armed forces of the main players.

The throat of international trade has become too narrow. If it is squeezed just a little, the entire world economy will immediately suffer a suffocating effect.

Iran , and behind it China and Russia , seem to have found another pain point for the West and are now actively squeezing it.

The time limit for inaction looks very limited.

However, the space for choosing possible actions is more limited.

There seem to be only two possibilities: either a hastily created new coalition will completely destroy the Yemeni regime through military means (unprecedented bombings or ground operations, one variant of which is special forces operations), or all parties - in the United States, Europe, China, Russia and Iran - some kind of new global compromise. The latter is much, much less likely than the former, as you know.

What we are talking about now is not a simple mechanical expansion of the current crisis to a new area, but a qualitative change (or a malignant change) of the crisis. And participants had little time to make rational decisions. Unless Tehran's elders suddenly revoke its agents' piracy licenses in Yemen, a drastic military escalation appears to be the priority. But this is something that no one in the world wants.

We've received a lot of comments in the last few days, even though we're still on vacation. Thanks to all my positive thinking friends! As everyone realizes, this is indeed a tense situation.

This article will select 5 representative reflections from all the comments we received, which can represent 5 perspectives on this situation. We think each aspect deserves more depth. Looking forward to your wisdom.

---

1 - The new "balance of power"

It is now the fourth month of the "war" between Israel and Hamas. More people must have understood that the liberation of the Palestinian people is not the main goal of the so-called " Black Sabbath " organizers.

The purpose is to inspire the Jewish state/or give it a "reason" to react extremely harshly, thereby triggering the possible "next step" - that is, the intervention of "third parties".

But the final act in the Middle East playbook is not a direct conflict between the United States and Iran.

The creators of this conflict are not looking for the end of the world. Their goal is not to destroy the world, but to dramatically alter the global balance of power.

That is why it was not Iran itself or its Lebanese-Syrian proxies, but the Houthis , who gradually moved from a minor role to a major one.

It would be difficult for Yemeni Shiite groups to cause any real damage to Israel, let alone provoke an escalation of the nuclear threat. However, the Houthi armed forces blockaded the strait between the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, which is of great strategic significance from the perspective of world logistics, forcing the United States to take decisive action, thus triggering geopolitical and geoeconomic "dynamics."

In particular, we must know that China is competing for the second hegemonic position in the above-mentioned maritime corridor . Less than 10 years ago, China established a military base in Djibouti . By the way, it is "not accidental" that Chinese troops are stationed on the African side of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. At the same time, the civil war initiated by the Houthi armed forces is raging on the Eurasian side. In addition, Iran, which supports Shia militants in Yemen, and (later) Qatar are themselves major trading partners of China.

Washington has been preparing for this. As early as September 2023, the White House tried to combine the positions of Saudi Arabia and the UAE on resolving the Yemen issue. There is also India 's G20 , which is a very clear chess game used to control China . The importance of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea to trade between India and Europe has been known to everyone since at least the first century AD when Rome established the so-called "Spice Route."

As a result, India's interests are now a little embarrassed, and the "European Window" may be slipping away from its hands... Or, "who" will do something?

2- The “enemy” has changed

If the "Desert Storm" of that year was correctly regarded as a victory crucial to the formation of a "unipolar world", then the current operations against the Houthis are more like some kind of stumbling of aging.

This is not only because the operators of today's "unipolar" systems are completely different from those of those days (in terms of everything including personality/style), but also because the opponents have changed.

The Economist has touched on certain aspects of the evolution of the "global South" in recent articles, with the Houthis representing one of these case studies.

The key issue here is that it is difficult for the current actions of the United States and Britain to cause the Houthi armed forces the same level of lethal destruction as the Iraqi army suffered in 1991.

The territory of Yemen has been in a state of humanitarian disaster, but this has had little impact on the Houthis’ resilience. When people have become accustomed to poverty, and a life of abject poverty for a long time, it is difficult to scare them with anything. They have been lying on the edge of the cliff for so long that they are familiar with the edge and actually have nothing to lose. By the way, this is completely different from the Iraqi society back then, which was more Westernized and prosperous.

In addition, there are no large-scale troop assembly areas, large-scale military warehouses and other facilities in Yemen. This means that there are no "important targets" to strike, only a sprinkling of unimportant targets, and striking each one of them is a difficult task. And the damage is not difficult to repair.

In Yemen, another model of this very new war mentality has actually been demonstrated, that is, one side is a society accustomed to a comfortable life, trying to hurt the enemy with so-called "surgical strikes", and the other side has nothing. society can only use small and cheap means of war. The same is true in Gaza . Tens of thousands of stragglers face hundreds of thousands of well-trained professional troops with overwhelming advantages.

To date, only Israel has most brazenly practiced the “methods” of countering this war psychology – genocide , total occupation and control. Recreate the colonial madness of the Middle Ages. But the results are (at least for now) well known.

Here is a collision of two kinds of thinking: one is that "everything you gain must come with a loss", and the other is that you are just desperate, and even your life is cheap. The stalemate thus created cannot be resolved by any of the older methods.

Three - Formation

Regarding the US and UK air strikes in Yemen, the uneven response of EU countries to this incident may be another part worthy of attention.

Of course, all major European countries are unequivocally condemning the actions of the Houthis, who began using Iranian-supplied missiles and drones to attack commercial and military ships in the Red Sea in late November. As a result, the free navigation of this important waterway, which accounts for 12% of world trade cargo traffic, is severely hampered.

Merchant ships from more than 50 countries were affected, and more than 2,000 ships changed their normal routes.

However, after US and British missiles struck dozens of targets in Yemen, including the capital Sanaa, on the evening of January 12, the US's European NATO allies did not express unanimous agreement. This is mainly due to differences in the evaluation of Israel's military operations in the Gaza Strip within the EU. The Houthis describe their actions in the Red Sea as "a response to the US and Israel's aggression in Palestine." In addition, some EU countries also hope to avoid further deterioration in relations with Iran and are worried about the escalation of conflicts in the Middle East.

This was telling in the EU's foreign policy arm's lack of immediate comment on the airstrikes targeting the Houthis. A day later, European foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell issued a statement on behalf of the EU, in which he made no mention of U.S. and British military actions.

Borrell simply pointed out that the United Nations Security Council resolution passed on January 10 stipulates that countries have the right to protect their own ships from attacks in accordance with international law, and called on the Houthis to exercise restraint and immediately stop attacks on ships.

Among the 10 countries that signed a joint statement supporting Washington and London's actions, only three EU countries are the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

The Netherlands provided some logistical and intelligence support for the military operation, according to U.S. officials. Apparently, The Hague took such action because the Netherlands' commercial ports, including Rotterdam, Europe's largest, were particularly hard hit by the Red Sea paralysis.

Acting Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte said: "The actions of the United States and the United Kingdom are based on the right of self-defense and aimed at protecting freedom of navigation, with a focus on de-escalating the situation."

"The Red Sea is the most important waterway between the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean. Safe passage in the Red Sea is therefore closely related to the interests of the Netherlands," the Dutch Foreign and Defense Ministers said in a letter to parliament.

"We will not hesitate to stand up to protect human life and the free movement of goods in the Red Sea," the German Defense Ministry said on Friday. The Defense Ministry is currently discussing what Germany's contribution to the coalition might be if the fierce confrontation with the Houthis continues.

But France and Italy, which have their own warships in the Red Sea, shy away from collective action.

Maj. Gen. Emmanuel Slars, commander of Paris' forces in the region, said his mission includes protecting all ships coming from France or linked to French interests, but does not include strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

A French government source told U.S. reporters that Paris is concerned, among other reasons, that joining the U.S.-led coalition would deprive it of the leverage it needs to ease tensions between Lebanon's Hezbollah and Israel.

In addition, Macron does not want to be deeply involved in the confrontation between the United States and Iran.

The report also said that Italy ignored Washington's request and refused to participate in the attack on the Houthi armed forces because Italy was worried about the outbreak of new military conflicts in the region and preferred to pursue a "pacification" policy locally.

Finally, Spain's left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, the most critical of European leaders of Israel's actions in Gaza, has sought to distance himself from the United States' hard-line approach to Red Sea shipping.

This is the current formation. But there is room for change to a certain extent.

Four- Why do humans kill each other?

As armed conflicts continue to escalate around the world—including news of U.S. and British military strikes in Yemen amid years of invasion—it’s worth discussing the origins of the war.

Rudolf Locke once strongly criticized some Marxists for trying to reduce war to the material interests of the bourgeoisie . After all, despite the huge profits the war industry brought to economies , including capitalist ones, war was often a sensitive blow. What is even more obvious is that war existed long before capitalism existed.

Anarchists themselves claim that capitalism is only a partial expression of hierarchy. So it pays to delve into the history .

For some time, anthropology has been dominated by the view that pre-state societies supposedly had higher levels of violence (researchers Lawrence Keeley and Steven Pinker), which in many ways continues Hobbes Sri Lanka's concept of "war of all against all". Keeley even argued that World War II was "much less deadly" on a percentage basis than past wars. This interpretation of events still exists to this day on "Out world in data", one of the famous world statistical websites.

But in fact, as critics point out, these claims are made without substantiation or even falsified (e.g., exaggerating events like the Crow Creek Massacre in the Columbus era).

Modern anthropologists have discovered that organized warfare did not appear in human society until 12,000 years ago. Before then, if there were conflicts, they could only be called "wars" in the broadest sense, since they were more like skirmishes between bonobos (our closest relatives) or modern street fights. Systematic raids emerged in 10,000 BC, initially primarily related to fears of scarcity .

But starting in the 3rd century BC, the organization and number of wars increased and reached a whole new level. All this is directly related to the emergence and strengthening of human social hierarchies .

Biology shows that different social animals have different social structure patterns: the more intense the intraspecific competition, the more likely the society is to be based on the biological dominance of the leader, such as mandrills; the more intense the intraspecific competition (such as Kropotkin said) mutual cooperation and assistance are reduced, the more egalitarian order can be seen, such as hairy spider monkeys, etc.

Before the Neolithic Revolution, on the other hand, humans were primarily an egalitarian animal. Pre-state patterns of social structure can be divided into two types: a headless society, which is completely devoid of hierarchy and official leaders, and a chiefdom-based society, where power and centralization already exist to varying degrees.

Both models existed before and after the Neolithic Revolution, but the first model was dominant before the revolution, and the second model gradually became dominant after the revolution.

Headless societies exist either as group or tribal societies, as with the vast majority of hunter-gatherers, or as village democracies in many agricultural cultures, with common directors, as with the Igbonon people of eastern Nigeria. Meetings practice discussion and consensus rather than hierarchical bureaucracies, so they exhibit less bellicosity.

In contrast, in chiefdoms, communities and councils increasingly play a consultative rather than decision-making role, and such societies are more militarized. Wars of conquest occurred when clan dignitaries or elders were given the right to direct the labor of others , such as certain military alliances. Subordination to neighboring groups enabled chiefs to collect tribute and slaves . On the other hand, the emergence of states enabled rulers to mobilize large populations to participate in the colonial state 's aggressive campaigns.

Five- "Will the world be okay?"

Everyone understands that what we are talking about now is no longer "private atrocities" somewhere, but the dynamics that are starting to happen throughout the world, and everyone is preparing to get back on the road. Naturally, the question arises - where to go? Is this a new, unprecedented dynamic? I would venture to say that what we are facing is merely a replay of the old; but the part that requires your and my participation must absolutely be unprecedented, precisely because the old methods have proven to have failed .

From a layman's perspective, almost everything going on in the world is extraordinary: between Palestinians and Israelis , between Russians and Ukrainians , between the Houthis blocking the Red Sea , and the Chinese threatening to block the Yellow Sea. ... However, from a historical perspective, this is the normal state of the world, exactly the same as it has been for thousands of years. Although the intensity of violence in this world has been relatively low and the number of wars has been limited in the past 40 years or so, this is precisely an unusual period in the history of the earth, caused by the coincidence of various unique circumstances.

There are three main situations: a disaster that claimed about 50 million lives, the emergence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the gap in world time and space left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is this last situation that has become the flashpoint of the current era. In the West, and especially in Europe, the dominant idea is to establish a very close and "easily achievable" (just make people believe it is achievable) equitable world order, free of violence and inequality , in which all minorities can be satisfied, all the weak will be protected and accommodated, and all the strong will hide in the corner and slap themselves in the mouth. In the first two decades of the 21st century, a generation and a half emerged in European politics. They grew up under the guidance of this concept and quickly became trend-setters.

The historical optimism of these generations of idealists was prepaid by their ancestors who died on the battlefields of World War II, and Gorbachev helped allay fears of a new global war. Their efforts created an illusion of “normality” for the unique state of humanity between 1985 and 2020 . It is commendable that they have seriously promoted the development of Western society on the road of humanization, and they will be indispensable for this in the future. However, the dizziness caused by success makes the real world they create far from their ideal. For this, everyone , including them, will soon pay a heavy price.

Now, the world is returning to its usual parameters . In this sense, nothing supernatural happens. However, that generation of idealists was not prepared for this "return". They don’t have any tools in their arsenal that they can use to deal with real-world problems and satisfy everyone, and they’re not prepared to borrow anything from previous generations.

This creates a dangerous vacuum. It's possible to cause a real crash . So, can generational change change anything? Assuming it can, that means no less than the next 10-15 years, when a new generation of realists will replace the current idealists. The former would create a more rigidly militarized world, with greater emphasis on force, more despotism, and fewer ideals. That is, a big step back . Then, it will be possible/possible to make rapid progress.

If you can’t wait any longer and cannot wait more than ten or twenty years (like me), then transform yourself into a “realist” and “cross over” this stage. That's what some of the people out there today are really committed to.

---

Thanks again for all the positive thoughts! Our year-end gift is here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/shui-shuo-jian-95542126

Starting from 2024, IYP hopes to find a new start with you.

🏴