Good article Peter,

Just a couple of points;

i. I think the most likely flashpoints will either be moves from players like to China to secure reserves like the Spratley islands, or ethnic based conflicts, most likely a general conflagration streching from Iran through to China.

ii. Agree the world has no interest in solving global warming. Without being pessimistic I think the outlook is utterly hopeless without significantly better leadership than we have now.

iii. Think you have a typo - surely you mean Iran as an target of Israeli nuclear planning, not Iraq?

cheers,

gw

With greatest respect gw, the article does read "Iran" and not "Iraq."

Dr.McMahon, you state..."Nobody seriously doubts that Peak Oil is at hand..." I beg to differ. Until recently, I was a great proponent of the theory of peak oil, but have now completely stopped talking about it to people I communicate with on a day to day basis. I found a small percentage of people becoming quite angry at the prospect their lives might be turned upside down as a result of peak oil but by far, the majority of people simply thought I was crazy and began to sprout off all manner of ideas from bio-diesel, tar sands and hydrogen and all without the faintest knowledge of just how ridiculous and unworkable such notions are. In fact, the general population seems to have no conceivable idea of just how short on vital resources Earth really is. They're all too busy consuming everything they can buy or rack up on plastic. It's not unlike the greedfest of a crow eating from a carcass in the middle of the road. It can see a vehicle approaching, but won't let up on the feasting until it's too late.
Very good article Dr. McMahon

Spot on, Peter McMahon.

I would like to emphasize your nomination of economic fairness to neutralize violence as part of your global governance solution.

In the SMH today, Steve Burrell comments on a recent study by the World Institute for Development Economic Research into personal wealth around the world.

The findings underpin most perceptions that economic fairness in the stuff of fairytales.
The top 1% owns 40% of the world’s assets while the bottom 50% own 1%.
With N.America, Europe and the rich Asian countries owning 90%, similar inequality exists between countries. The same holds true within countries with S. American countries as standouts.

With the internet increasing the awareness of the poor as to their lack of economic fairness, with the continuing failure of political systems to improve their lot and with the increasing availability of weapons, I think you can add to your troubling summary of the world today.

I think the first cab off the rank will be the unrest and open revolt by these people who do not see any economic fairness in their world.

Geoff said:

"economic fairness to neutralize violence"

Geoff, that is based on an assumption that all violence is based on a sense of 'economic' unfairness. Don't you think its possible that there is another dimension ? Such as 'Perceived Religious unfairness' ?

The classic example is the Israel/Palestinian struggle. I believe that even if the Palestinians were offered land of equal or greater value to that which they lost, but with the condition that they relinquish all claims to East Jerusalem,- well... I am quite confident that most of them would not want it. HAMAS would never, till hell freezes over accept that.

The analysis that all these problems are purely economic fails to recognize the deep connection people of faith have to spiritual issues.

China and its overtures to Africa ? hmmm the most important part of that section of the article was that China is willing to deal with “anyone” to ensure its supply of resources.
I smiled as the author described Mugabe as a ‘Pariah’... I have a tiny feeling that back in the days when the whites were stealing 90% of the land from them, they belted out a drum beat to neighbouring tribes about ‘White Pariahs’ ! Isn’t it amazing how our past territorial sins are ‘history’ and their current restoration of stolen property are ‘actions of a pariah’. Just a hint of bias there.

Excellent appraisal of the present global position and its dangers, Peter. It is interesting that it was Adam Smith, father of Laissez-faire, who pointed out the dangers of the new style of liberty first expressed by John Locke.

It was Adam Smith who also gave notice that though this new-found liberty from too much government interference in trade and marketing was based on the greed that goes with competition, governments still had an even stromger role to play in caring for the workers as well as the losers.

Now we might say that during the bi-polar political system we had soon after the end of WW2 with the Soviets trying to equal the US in power, we were still able to develop the so necessary and successful Marshall Plan. The United Nations was also acting reasonably responsible despite the ridiculous vetoes allowed for the big powers.

Furthermore, with the formation of the WTO, and the end of the Cold War we all had hopes of at last creating the global utopia that many had been praying for.

Even during the Cold War there were social science discussions about whether a unipolar system as now exists with America as global top dogs would be any better than a bi-polar system with two nations of equal power. There was also talk about a multi-polar system, first expressed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Certainly Adam Smith was right about the danger of greed setting in - especially as regards today's Middle East, which is mostly about Western intrusion and injustice brought on by the marketing greed that Adam Smith warned so much about.

Also the lack of insight which allowed Western powers, chiefly America to shut their eyes while allowing
Israel to become dangerously atomic, causing Iran who has never attacked another country to have changed her mind about Israel.

Much more can be said about power imbalance and political and economic greed, as certainly as well as political and economic fair play.

Peter writes a good general overview. I think there are certain points to consider economics are often touted as a panacea for every problem from social ills to famine. This has been an effect of several global political organisations since the Second world war. Not exclusively the U.N , the World Bank as examples. We take it for granted that economics is a cure all but neglect the fundamental nature of economics is that economics is politics. To be resource rich is hold power over others wether its an employer forcing already exploited workers onto AWA's or an incompetant political party sitting in government for many terms while a poor small more capable party languish. Economic activity creates externalities and power is reshuffled. The virginian farmer works his slave to death and his farm collapses. We over exploit resources (please see updated vegetation maps of the Amazon, Borneo and Sumatra)and pollute the earth and our "farm" collapses. Our "farm" is already collapsing (one symptom is climate change) and thats why there is increasing political and social entropy in the world today.