Interpretation Restrictions must legally mandate a decrease in the quantity produced – regulations are distinct


Great power conflict is possible – resource conflicts, environmental crises and rising powers could spark global war



Download 162.15 Kb.
Page28/50
Date20.01.2021
Size162.15 Kb.
1   ...   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   ...   50

Great power conflict is possible – resource conflicts, environmental crises and rising powers could spark global war



Dyer, 6

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist, 'Has the world really changed since 9/11?,' September 7, http://www.straight.com/has-the-world-really-changed-since-9-11


Without 9/11 there would still be a “terrorist threat”, of course, because there is always some terrorism. It's rarely a big enough threat to justify expanding police powers, let alone launching a “global war” against it, but the fluke success of the 9/11 attacks (which has not been duplicated once in the subsequent five years) created the illusion that terrorism was a major problem. Various special interests climbed aboard the bandwagon, and off we all went. That is a pity, because without 9/11 there would have been no governments justifying torture in the name of fighting terrorism, no “special renditions”, no camps like Guantánamo. Tens of thousands of people killed in the various invasions of the past five years would still be alive, and western countries with large Muslim minorities would not now face a potential terrorist backlash at home from their own disaffected young Muslims. The United States would not be seen by most of the world as a rogue state. But that's as far as the damage goes. Current U.S. policy and the hostility it arouses elsewhere in the world are both transient things. The Sunni Muslim extremists””they would call themselves Salafis””who were responsible for 9/11 have not seized power in a single country since then, despite the boost they were given by the flailing U.S. response to that attack. The world is actually much the same as it would have been if 9/11 had never happened. Economically, 9/11 and its aftermath have had almost no discernible long-term impact: even the soaring price of oil is mostly due to rising demand in Asia, not to military events in the Middle East. The lack of decisive action on climate change is largely due to Bush policies that were already in place before 9/11. And, strategically, the relations between the great powers have not yet been gravely damaged by the U.S. response to 9/11. There may even be a hidden benefit in the concept of a “war on terror”. It is a profoundly dishonest concept, since it is actually directed mainly against Muslim groups that have grievances against the great powers: Chechens against Russia, Uyghurs against China, Kashmiri Muslims and their Pakistani cousins against India, and practically everybody in the Arab world against the U.S. and Britain. The terrorists' methods are reprehensible but their grievances are often real. However, the determination of the great powers to oppose not only their methods but their goals is also real. That gives them a common enemy and a shared strategy. The main risk at this point in history is that the great powers will drift back into some kind of alliance confrontation. Key resources are getting scarcer, the climate is changing, and the rise of China and India means that the pecking order of the great powers is due to change again in the relatively near future. Any strategic analyst worth his salt, given those preconditions, could draw you up a dozen different scenarios of disaster by lunchtime.



Share with your friends:
1   ...   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   ...   50




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page