The whole world knows the name Gavrilo Princip, and that of he man he
assassinated, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Princip’s shot triggered the
Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia that set in motion the chain of
events leading to the Great War of 1914.
After Serbia appealed to Russia for help, Russia began moving towards
mobilization of its army, believing that Germany was using the crisis
as an excuse to launch war in the Balkans. Upon hearing news of Russia’s
general mobilization, Germany declared war on Russia. The German army
then launched its attack on Russia’s ally, France, through Belgium,
violating Belgian neutrality and bringing Great Britain into the war as
well.
Is it possible that a similar chain of events may have already begun
unfurling with the Syrian downing of a Turkish F-4 fighter jet? Turkey
have already invoked a full meeting of NATO, claimed that Syria have
fired on a second Turkish plane, and vowed that Syria’s actions “won’t go unpunished”.
The vast and sprawling system of national alliances that existed
prior to the events 1914 were considered by policy makers of the time to
be a counterbalance against excessive tension and the threat of war.
The great powers created alliances ostensibly for the purpose of
deterring war. The dominant view was that the potential for dragging in
allies reduced the chances of an attack. In reality, it just meant that
one spark could set the entire world aflame.
This is functionally the same as the interconnecting mesh of
derivatives and shadow intermediation that foreshadowed the crash of
2008. As financial parties sold each other more and more “hedges“,
the consensus of the time was that this made the system safer, as it
allowed risk to be dissipated around the system. The theory was — and
there were plenty of inaccurate mathematical models to back this up —
that spreading risk around the system made the financial system safer.
As it turned out, it didn’t. In the wake of MF Global and the London Whale, we know that the financial system has not learned the lessons of 2008. But it seems even more absurd that the diplomatic system has not really learned the lessons of 1914.
The NATO system — set up to oppose the Warsaw Pact system, which no
longer exists — functions the same way — rather than dissipating risk,
it allows for the magnification of international tensions into full-on
regional and global wars. In the late 20th century the threat of nuclear
war proved a highly-effective deterrent which limited the potential for
all-out-war between the great powers, offsetting much of the risk of
the hyper-fragile treaty system. Yet the potential for magnifying small
regional problems into bigger wars will continue to exist for as long as
NATO and similar organisations prevail.
We do not know exactly what arrangements Syria has with Russia and
China — there is no formal defensive pact in place (although there is
one between Syria and Iran) though it is fair to assume that Russia will
be keen to maintain its Syrian naval assets, a view which is supported
by the fact Russia heavily subsidises the Syrian military, and has blocked all the UN-led efforts toward intervention in Syria.
After the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was allowed to disintegrate.
Until NATO is similarly allowed to disintegrate, the threat of
magnification will remain large. Could a border skirmish between Syria
and Turkey trigger a regional or even global war? Under the status quo,
anything is possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment