The End of Guano

Once, 50,000 people from three countries died in a war over bird droppings.

Well, that's an exaggeration. But I couldn't help but think of the War of the Pacific when I read the NYT story on Peruvian guano. There have a been many conflicts fought over it - and though there is a slight revival now, guano will likely never move states to war again. The NYT article mentions guano as a parable for oil, but I think there's a key question if we go down that road - is the 21st century for oil going to look like the 19th for guano, or the 21st century for guano? Obviously it's not that clear cut. But if you believe the proposition that oil has been historically cheap given its world importance, then chances are we're only at the beginning of major resource conflicts for it. Or not.

As a side note, the guano wars provide an interesting frame of reference for the 21st century's potential battles over petroleum - many of the conflicts were not massive, land-based affairs like the War of the Pacific but naval skirmishes. The resource conflicts for oil, should they become more common, will likely (and arguably already have) feature many of the same characteristics. This is why I'm hesitant to downplay the role of the navy in modern strategy - just because the US navy is currently unrivaled does not mean we should forgo a deterrent against competing states on a regional scale.

Unusual Signs

From the BBC:

Japan has decided not to a send a military aircraft to China to deliver relief supplies for victims of the Sichuan earthquake.

It will instead use a chartered plane to send the materials to the disaster zone, top government spokesman Nobutaka Machimura said.

The move came after some Chinese officials were concerned about allowing a military plane in, Mr Machimura said.

There is lingering anger in China over Japan's actions in World War II.

Ties between the two sides have improved in recent months, but only three years ago there were violent anti-Japanese protests across several Chinese cities.

Chinese officials were concerned about a backlash among people who remember Japan's war-time militarism, media reports said.

Now, I would not make too much of this, but the parallels, or perhaps lack thereof, with another incident are curious. Knowing the problems of historical memory in Asia remains quite prescient, especially given their grounding in the general population rather than the ruling elite. It has been remarked that Chinese nationalism is a threat to this elite, yet simultaneously that development will empower the masses politically, not just economically. Will nationalism dissipate with the empowerment of the people, or is the continued political stratification of China in the interest of regional stability? One wonders how a "China Lobby" of the 21st century might look.

Transparency & Accountability

I hope you all feel safer now.

First post - On Education

By popular demand - well, to the extent that the author is popular, of course - I have a blog. Rejoice, etc.

--

Suppose China, or Russia, or a bunch of Middle Eastern countries decide that the US is an altogether too violent nation, with radical unilateralist policies, lack of economic opportunity, and a disproportionately lower-class military. Noting the oft-maligned state of American public education, they decide to start pouring money into the US education system. Oh, and they start discouraging parochial and private schools for good measure. Only money for public schools. That is, of course, if the US stops promoting wars and violence as instruments of foreign policy in its curriculum. That will have to stop.

If other nations started doing this, would Americans really like the rest of the world more? Maybe a few would be grateful for the extra money, but most likely the conservatives and hawks would be even more energized, and people would start talking about 'plots against America' by the foreign interests, and distrust their government for its compliance with these subversive outsiders.

So I wonder why people really expect doing the same sort of 'de-radicalizing' via educational systems is supposed to work in the Middle East and other regions. I'm not saying ALL Muslims or foreign citizens would be angry or paranoid, but there are enough out there to make things difficult, just as there are people in America who would flip out if they figured out their child's education was being bankrolled by the Saudis. Furthermore, secular schools hardly mean moderate students. Osama himself went to a secular "Model School" in Saudi Arabia. Having the West shove educational reforms down the throats of other nations isn't going to improve things politically. The US is still subverting fundamentalist beliefs, interfering in the affairs of others, and engaging in a conspiracy against some group or another. Will it anger all foreign citizens? Probably not. But we don't need all of them to want to fight for some to. It only takes a minority of the Muslim population to cause existing levels of terrorism, too.

I'm all for education. On the whole, it is a great thing. But it's not going to solve everything, terrorism included. This is not an appeal against supporting education in the Islamic world, or indeed any other area with US PR problems - only an appeal against using it as a substitute for an actual foreign policy.