I sometimes think of Parisians sitting at a sidewalk cafe in April, 1939. They chat about their plans - perhaps to move to a bigger apartment in the 9th Arrondissment, or to go on holiday in Normandy, or to move their daughter, Jacqueline, to another school... Or perhaps they talk about politics - about the performance of their Prime Minister, Édouard Daladier, or about that disturbing upstart, Adolf Hitler, across the Rhine... Thank Heavens that, last September, Daladier and the Englishman, Chamberlain, succeeded in their negotiations with Hitler to secure “peace in our time”. And even if the worst came to the worst, they always had the impregnable Maginot Line....
They order another glass of wine – never dreaming that within two years their lives will have changed beyond all recognition. Pierre will be in a German Prisoner of War camp; Antoinette will be trying to keep the family business going in Montmartre; Jacqueline will be with her grandmother in Lyons - and the Nazis will be in Paris.
Our worlds can change fundamentally, irreversibly and unexpectedly within a matter of months.
There is nothing new about this.
Uncertainty has always been the default condition of mankind – except, perhaps, for our generation who have lived our lives during the period following World War II. Ours has been a golden age. The absence of major wars directly involving great powers and the establishment of a rules-based international order, resulted in an enormous increase in global trade, technological progress and rising living standards throughout the world.
Since World War II the human population has more than trebled to 8 billion. Life expectancy increased from 47 in 1948 to 71 more in 2020. There has also been an enormous explosion in planetary prosperity – world GDP has increased from $10 trillion in 1950 to a projected $ 125 trillion this year. Nearly everyone has benefited: In 1950 58% percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. By 2020 the percentage had, according to the World Bank, decreased to only 8%.
Unfortunately, there are indications that this golden age might be drawing to a close.
The international scene has not been so volatile or dangerous since 1939. Not since then (with the exception of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis) has the possibility of war between great powers looked so ominous.
- In Ukraine, Europe is experiencing its first major war since 1945 – with little indication of how or when it might end;
- Israel is caught in a life-or-death struggle with Hamas and Hezbollah – both surrogates of Iran – with the possibility that these conflicts might escalate into all-out war;
- President Xi Jin Ping has vowed to reunify Taiwan with China – by force if necessary – before 2030. At the same time, tensions are rising in the South China Sea.
The origins of the Ukraine War lie in Russia’s sense of national grievance following the dissolution of the Soviet Union; in the role played by the United States and Europe; and finally in the personality of Vladimir Putin.
On 9 February 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to the reunification of Germany and the withdrawal of 400 000 Soviet troops from East Germany on the basis of solemn promises from US Secretary of State, James Baker, that NATO “would not move one inch toward the East”. Subsequently the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria all joined the alliance. In 2008 the US was actively considering the eventual inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.
In February 2014, the US actively supported the unconstitutional overthrow of the duly elected, but pro-Russian, government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. Mass demonstrations in the Maidan square, bankrolled by the US and supported by ultra-nationalist elements, demanded that Ukraine should join the EU. Yanukovich was forced to flee to Russia. Even before his departure, US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, in a leaked telephone call, was discussing with US Ambassador in Kyiv who should be included in the post-Yanukovych government.
The ousting of Yanukovych alarmed his Russian-speaking supporters in the Donbas – who soon mounted a secessionist rebellions against Kyiv. Russia supported the rebellions and invaded the Crimea to secure its principal Black Sea naval base in Sebastopol.
On 24 February 2022 Russia, in brazen contravention of international law, launched its invasion of Ukraine. Putin evidently expected an easy victory and the early achievement of his core goal of reuniting Ukraine with Russia. He was so confident of success that Russian invasion troops reportedly had their dress uniforms with them – in anticipation of a victory parade in Kyiv. He was shocked and surprised by the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people under the inspired leadership of Volodymyr Zelensky.
Nevertheless, he quickly agreed to Israeli-brokered peace talks in Istanbul in March 2022. According to Putin, the two sides were close to an agreement based on the neutrality of Ukraine and guarantees for its future security by leading powers, including Russia. However, the agreement was scuppered by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson who, at the behest of President Biden, informed Zelensky that “Putin was a war criminal who should be pressured and not negotiated with”.
Former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who participated in the Istanbul talks, confirmed that “the Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed.”
Since then there have been a million casualties in the war – including an estimate 200 000 deaths – and Ukraine has suffered war damage amounting to US$ 100 billion.
The US and the EU have now granted - or promised - Ukraine more than $300 000 billion to support their war effort. In April this year US Secretary of State Antony Blinken pointed out that “the overwhelming majority of resources” destined for Ukraine “will actually be invested right here in the United States, in our own defence industrial base to provide what Ukraine needs, but providing in the meantime good American jobs.”
The objective – as former UK Foreign Minister David Cameron, proclaimed in April was a Ukrainian victory. He was confident that “if we give the Ukrainians the support they deserve, they can win this war; they can achieve the just peace that they deserve”. Secretary Blinken insisted that Ukraine would Join NATO – and President Macron of France foresaw that NATO ground operations in Ukraine might be necessary “at some point.”
What would Russia’s reaction be?
In his state of the nation address on 29 February President Putin made it clear that Russia would use nuclear weapons against NATO countries if they send forces to help defend Ukraine from a Russian victory. “They must understand that we also have weapons that can hit targets in their territory”. “All this threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilisation. Don’t they get that?”
Evidently not.
Earlier this month, the United States and the UK were considering the possibility of allowing Ukraine to use the deadly Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles – already in Ukraine’s possession - to strike targets deep inside Russia. This followed a devastating Ukraine drone attack on a depot west of Moscow that reportedly destroyed thousands of tons of missiles and explosives causing an earthquake of 2,7 on the Richter scale.
Putin has warned that if Ukraine is given permission to attack targets deep in Russia with Storm Shadow missiles, it would mean that Russia would be at war with NATO.
Russia has an estimated 6 000 nuclear weapons. They include Satan II hypersonic missiles that could reach the US in 18 minutes, each with up to 16 independently targeted warheads. They have 16 nuclear submarines each armed with 16 missiles with multiple nuclear warheads and 11 submarines armed with cruise missiles.
An all-out nuclear war would kill some 360 million people immediately. Another 5 billion would die of starvation caused by a 10-year nuclear winter.
It is unlikely that any leader would purposely unleash such devastation - knowing that his own country would be destroyed in retaliatory strikes or in the subsequent nuclear winter. However, a desperate leader might use much less destructive tactical nuclear weapons to achieve battlefield objectives or to warn enemies of the possibility of unrestrained escalation.
We should, however, consider Putin’s world view.
The Dutch Historian, Beatrice de Graaf, has carried out a study of his writings and speeches during the past 30 years. They reveal that his mission is to restore the grandeur of Imperial Russia. He sees Moscow as the Third Rome and, believe it or not, as the defender of Christian civilisation against the utterly depraved West. He claims to be an Orthodox Christian and reads the bible every day.
His language has become increasingly eschatological. In 2019 he invoked “the end of times”. The aggressor, in the final eschatological battle, “should know that we shall all be annihilated, but we, as martyrs will go to Paradise - but they will perish because they won’t have time to repent their sins.” According to Prof De Graaff, in 2022 the eschatological final battle rhetoric became one of the foundational arguments for the invasion of Ukraine.
The West has been sending signals of their hostile - or even worse, dismissive - intentions to Russia since 1991 - forgetting the core lesson of Versailles that one should not humiliate a great people. This has nothing to do with whether Putin is a “good guy” or a “bad guy.” He is a ruthless dictator - but that has nothing to do with the necessity to deal with him – and whatever reasonable, or unreasonable, concerns he might have - in a rational manner. International politics has never been a “nice guy” competition. At core, it may be about survival.
There appears to be no end-game plan for the Ukraine War. One has the sense of the leading powers, once again, sleepwalking toward war.
At the same time, the conflict in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon may be spiraling out of control. Israel may defeat Hamas in Gaza but it is losing the critical perceptions war in the international media. The recent pager attacks on Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon have escalated the conflict on Israel’s northern border – with the possibility of an all-out Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Israel’s reaction has been caused by Hezbollah’s continuous missile bombardment of northern communities which has caused it to evacuate more than 80 000 Israeli’s from their homes.
In the meantime, Hezbollah has 150 000 missiles – some of which may have the ability to penetrate Israel’s Iron Dome defences. The Houthis in Yemen have begun to launch hyper-sonic missiles against Israel. Lurking behind all this is Iran – which is reportedly close to producing its own nuclear weapons – despite Israeli threats that they will not tolerate such a development.
The depressing reality is that there appears to be no realistic solution to the growing conflict. The horrendous Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October last year appear to have killed any prospect for a two-state solution. But what is the alternative – and how can there be peace between Israel and people who not accept its right to existence? So, Israel faces the prospect of growing isolation, of escalating conflict and of being driven into a corner where it will have diminishing options, and some 100 nuclear weapons.
The third and fourth potential flash points are in the South China Sea and Taiwan.
China claims virtually the whole of the South China Sea – based on ancient Chinese maps. Apart from straddling one of the world’s great ocean routes, the seabed below the South China Sea is believed to have 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. China has backed up its claim by building 27 military bases and outposts on shoals and islands in the Sea, including the Spratly Islands, that are also claimed by the Philippines.
The Philippines took China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague over the dispute. In July, 2016 the Court found in the Philippines favour. China rejected the finding and has become more aggressive in trying to exclude Philippine vessels from the islands. This has resulted in a number of incidents, including the recent ramming of a Philippine vessel by a Chinese Coast Guard ship. There are fears that the incidents might escalate to the point where the Philippines might invoke its defence treaty with the United States.
The United States has rejected the Chinese claims and expansion in the area and upholds its right and the right of all other nations to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
The dispute between China and Taiwan goes back to 1949 when the defeated Chinese nationalists under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek fled to the island which they ruled in the name of the Republic of China. The United States continued to recognise the Taiwan regime as the legitimate government of the whole of China until 1979 when it shifted recognition to the People’s Republic of China in Beijing.
All parties, including Taiwan, the PRC and the USA continued to subscribe to the one China policy – in terms of which Taiwan was viewed as part of China. The United States has adopted a policy of aggressive ambiguity as to whether it would use armed force to oppose any attempt by the PRC to invade Taiwan. At the same time, it has discouraged Taiwan from declaring independence from China. Despite recurrent crises and saber-rattling across the Taiwan Strait, this has remained the position since 1979. In the intervening years Taiwan has flourished and has become one of the most prosperous and democratic countries in the world.
However, during the past five years tensions between the PRC and Taiwan have risen.
- President Xi Jin Ping has nailed his colours and presidential heritage to the prospect of reuniting Taiwan with the rest of China by 2030 – peacefully if possible, but by force, if necessary.
- Taiwan presents a democratic model for a free, prosperous and peaceful society that is irreconcilable with President Xi’s reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism as the only system for China.
- The pro-independence Democratic Progressive party has won the last two Taiwanese elections. It would never accept peaceful reunification with China – particularly after the manner in which the PRC has crushed freedom in Hong Kong;
- The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) produces 90% of the world’s semiconductors. This has enhanced Taiwan’s strategic importance because semiconductors are essential components in virtually all cellphones, computers and advanced military equipment.
- On 18 September President Biden said that the United States would defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion.
There are indications that the PRC’s military forces might be ready to launch an invasion of Taiwan by 2027. This would, however, be a remarkably difficult project – particularly if the United States opposes it with its own military forces.
- It would require the greatest sea-borne invasion since the Normandy invasion of 1944.
- It would threaten the 60% of oil supplies that China receives by ship through the straits of Malacca and the South China Sea.
- It would seriously disrupt Chinese trade and threaten an international financial crisis; and
- It might unite China’s deeply alarmed neighbours – Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and perhaps even India - in an alliance against it.
So, this is the world that confronts us as we go about our daily lives in Cape Town – all of us, in our own ways, planning for our futures and the futures of our children and our grandchildren.
Ech of these conflicts involves nuclear–armed states. Each of them is a reflection of the shifts in global strategic tectonic plates as the world moves inexorably away from the unipolar domination of the United States to a new multi-polar reality in which China, Russia, India and Iran will be competing for influence and power.
Wars occur according to the assessment - or miss-assessment - by contesting powers of the will, resources, unity, competence and intentions of their opponents. Unfortunately, the US and Europe have not, since the 1930s, looked so lacking in will; so divided and so incompetent as they do now.
It is not my intention to depress you all with the information that I have presented this morning.
It is possible that these conflicts might be resolved peacefully – that common sense will prevail and that all those involved will draw back from the precipice of conflict. The possibility of any of these crises resulting in a global nuclear war is probably less than 1%. - but even at this level it would still constitute the greatest threat to humanity – far greater indeed than climate change.
But who would board an aircraft with a 1% chance of crashing?
We must remember how hopeless our own situation appeared to be in the mid-1980s:
- There were violent protests throughout the country;
- After the Rubicon speech we were confronted with growing isolation and economic collapse;
- Our armed forces were involved in escalating conflict in Southern Angola with forces actively supported by the Soviet Union.
But we were able to pull back from the precipice and find solutions to our seemingly intractable problems.
There are many factors, unknown to us now, that might change the course of events:
- Present leaders might pull back from the brink of conflict;
- New leaders might arise;
- There might be a global financial crisis;
- Within the next five years we might have Artificial General Intelligence – which could change everything.
Who knows?
Perhaps the next time we go to our favorite restaurant and enjoy a glass of wine and talk about the future, we should be grateful for everything that we have and for the fact that our generation has lived in the very best of times.
And given these global threats it is reassuring that we live in this lovely place – right at the southern tip of the African continent.
