Stephen Hawking on Knowledge

The Spread of International Instability

The world has become more chaotic due to the actions of the United States and European Union block. International instability can be seen through the rapid increase in war zones, economic turmoil, and the mass migration of refugees. Other world powers in response to US-EU interference respond with subversion. It is possible that the Global South could be caught in a power struggle between two power blocks. However, this would mirror a Cold War scenario, which is not an accurate analysis. Describing the power struggles between two power blocks does not show the immense power shift and complex relationships emerging in a world that is moving in the direction of multipolar international politics. China is an emerging international force and Russia has returned to a level of power not seen since the Soviet era. These countries are not a threat to the world as long as they do not seek imperial aspirations. The EU states and the US want to remain the undisputed controllers of the world functioning on a framework of neocolonialism. Peace, freedom, and democracy is the rhetoric that is used to justify military involvement abroad. The ulterior motive is for the US to remain the sole superpower indefinitely and the former European colonial empires to reassert their dominance in Africa and Asia. The only practical solution for a safe and functional globe would be to recognize the new multipolar world dynamic. If such a revelation or change does not occur the world will face mass global conflict or possible societal collapse. International instability by definition is political, social, and economic tumult propagating between various nation states. 

         The war zones of the globe have expanded in Asia, Africa, and may reach Latin America. The United States and Russia are involved in a war of proxy in the Syrian Civil War. The US claims that it is reducing combat troops in Iraq, but it may merely be moving more into Syria to assist with armed groups . Turkey reacted to this by invading Syrian territory. Afrin was the target and it was clear what the objectives were. Turkey wants to increase its power and influence in the Middle East. Simultaneously Turkey wants to stop the Kurdish movement for independence and destroy the YPG. This has caused tension between both the US and Turkey, but there is one goal both strive for. There still remains a persistent desire to remove President Bashar Al-Assad from power. This is where the disagreement between the two NATO countries becomes problematic. Turkey views a post-Assad Syria should be under its sphere  of influence. This is why Turkey also conducted military operations into northern Iraq. Turkey is embarking on a policy of Neo-Ottomanism. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to see Turkish power grow in areas that were once part of the deceased Ottoman Empire. This does not involve diplomatic engagement, rather direct military intervention into Arab lands. Turkey defends these actions by stating it is fighting ISIS or Kurdish groups that attack the state. Such claims are justification for expansion into the region. The conflicts between Syria, Turkey, ISIS, and YPG become more complicated when Saudi Arabia and Israel are a factor. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia  are indirectly in conflict with Iran. This tension and struggle can be seen in both Yemen and Lebanon These smaller conflict can escalate into a region wide war. It would involve the Gulf monarchies and Israel fighting Iran, which would have devastating consequences. This may also encourage the Kurds to build a state by force arms, West Asia is not the only region on the continent seeing rising conflict. 

East Asia could be another area of regional war. The Trump administration has taken a more belligerent tone in its approach to North Korea. Military drills have been conducted between South Korean and American forces. The US claims this is a preventative measure to stop North Korea's further development of  nuclear weapons. There has been tension between North Korea and the US for half a century, but the reason for the recent anger is directed at China. The harassment of North Korea causes problems for China, which may be the US intention. The Obama administration's pivot to Asia was designed to act as containment of China. While China has not threatened the US or EU countries it is now being treated as a security risk. The true motive is to stop China's rise as a major world power. The Trump administration has made it clear that peace is not part of its policy. Targeting North Korea is an indirect way to harass China. President Donald Trump  early on in his administration contacted President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan. It appeared as if he was about to change his mind on the One China policy. So far, there has not been significant change yet it is possible that there will be as long as relations continue to deteriorate. There is some form of an anti-China coalition developing, which could indicate a possible military conflict in the future. The US has made overtures to India and President Trump has met with Prime Minister  Narendra Modi . This attempt to get closer to India would put pressure on China, which continues to have tension with that country. China has favored Pakistan over India in its foreign policy, but the US wants to challenge the regional status quo. The new Indo-Pacific policy is designed to counter China's influence not just in South Asia, but challenge it in Asian oceans. If the US is pushing for a China and North Korea conflict, this will effect operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are more conflagrations in Afghanistan than in previous years, with a resurgent Taliban and possible ISIS presence. The entire Asian continent could see mass warfare induced by external forces. 

        Africa has seen more conflict and it continues to spread uncontrolled. It is even possible that it could reach other countries that were more stable. Ethiopia is suffering from a political crisis induced by the discrimination of Oromo and Amhara peoples. Limited civil rights and economic turmoil has caused discord. This if not solved could turn into armed conflict similar to South Sudan. East Africa has challenges from Al-Shabab and US drone strikes in Somalia. Although the US in terms of policy no longer considers fighting terrorism a priority, they use the War on Terror to justify any military action around the globe. The African Union Mission to Somalia has failed to form stability in the country which has been in  a state of civil war since 1991. Instability that is present in Somalia attract other African nations who want to extend their influence. Uganda wants to extend its influence beyond its southern border. President Yoweri Museveni wants to ensure his rule extends further than just Uganda by having indirect influence in other African states. Longtime leaders are becoming more paranoid about their political futures with numerous regime changes or removal of other governments. 

The Arab Spring was a misnomer. The uprisings that occurred in North Africa began in Tunisia. This brought more instability to Africa with regime changes in Egypt and Libya. Such changes will only make the more extreme and authoritarian leaders cling to power. Idris Deby the President of Chad has made efforts to secure closer relations with Saudi Arabia. Having other countries provide them aid can ensure their political survival. Togo and Burundi are experiencing internal protests against leaders and their governments. Libya does not have a functional government and resembles a failed state. The year 2016 saw internal conflicts get worse for both Libya and Egypt. Militias, terrorist groups, and paramilitary organizations continue to fight one another. There remain two rival governments one based in Tripoli and the other in Tobruk . Since 2014 the civil war entered a new phase causing even more migrant traffic. The UN proposal for peace was not recognized by other factions. This was between the two major rival factions and the country is still not whole. Egypt experiment with a change in government resulted in the election of Muhammad Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. A coup removed him from office and Abdul Fattah Sisi  came to power. Since his rise in 2013, he has carried out a military campaign against the Sinai. Peninsula. Egypt has essentially reverted back to a Mubarak political model. The difference now is that military action and conflict will increase. Nigeria and Cameroon are embarked on a campaign against Boko Harem. Such military campaigns may not eradicate the group entirely. The Democratic Republic of the Congo still has not achieved a lasting stability with the appearance of the M23 rebels. As longtime African leaders are being replaced or removed from power this only opens the possibility of more warfare. President  Joseph Kabila is now facing new opposition to his rule. He has been president since 2001 and their are fears that possible civil war could beak out if tensions escalate. The African Central Republic has not been stable since the fall of Francois Bozize. The rise of the Seleka rebels has put the country in a state of civil war. Africa needs peace, but with US-EU involvement on the continent. UN peacekeeping missions are not about protecting civilian life, rather  it is a means of  Western powers disguising  their geopolitical intentions. 

       Latin America could find itself subject to aggression. Donald Trump stated that he was considering military action in Venezuela. To most this sounded like a farce, but thinking about it in the context of US-Latin American relations makes it more serious. The United States has for two centuries been invading and intervening in South American nations. This was done under the context of the Monroe Doctrine and later in the 20th century the Roosevelt Corollary. The Cold War caused more military actions in Latin America with the US pursuing a policy of containment. The problem now is that the US wants to maintain dominance in the region and is selecting leftists governments to either be eradicated or neutralized. There has been some progress in the Colombian Civil War with FARC rebels accepting a peace deal in 2016, but there still remains political challenges. The conflict has not officially ended and the economic crisis in Venezuela is spilling over to Colombia. Cuba has been a player in peace negotiations, while the US has for a long period of time supported right-wing paramilitary organizations in the country. The US has attempted to depose the Venezuelan government under the Bush administration. Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicholas Maduro oppose US presence in Latin America. With the death of President Chavez, Maduro was left with the challenges of a struggling economy and a more aggressive US. 

             

   A pillar of the leftist governments was knocked out with the fall of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Barzil and the rest of Latin America is seeing an increase in crime and internal warfare due to poverty, corruption, racism, as well as external forces. Rousseff's fall brought an end to any possible reform. Brazil continues to struggle more economically and almost looks as if it is reaching a state of open internal warfare. Some even call Rousseff's removal a coup by legal means. Since 2016, Brazilian democracy has slowly  degenerated. President Michel Temer  has now summoned the military to take control of   Rio de Janeiro's police forces . The justification was to fight drug trafficking gangs. The War on Drugs has not only devastated the US, but continues to have negative effects on Latin America. South America has a problem with the rapid increase in narcoterrorism. Drug cartels may become more powerful that governments or the police force. Mexico has in this regard, transformed into what Colombia once was in the 20th century. The combination of internal discord and ongoing conflicts has caused a boost in emigration. The wave of emigration to the US began in the 1980s when the Ronald Reagan administration became more involved in the civil wars occurring in Central America. Mexico today faces security risks from growing drug cartels causing people to flee. The increase in drug crime and narcoterrorism is the result of both US consumption and the effects of globalization. The Donald Trump administration has shown its hostility to South America and Mexico in particular. It has no toleration for Cuba or improving relations, which the Obama administration was attempting to do. Instead the US may use its power to forcibly halt immigration for South America and overthrow leftist governments. Donald Trump's rhetoric about constructing a wall on the US-Mexico border has damaged relations, not only in Mexico but the rest of Latin America. Homicide rates continue to increase in South American nations effected by US interference, economic turmoil, and political factionalism. There are states in Latin America that are becoming closer to the US, even with the rising anti-South American racism in America. Honduras and Guatemala are troubled states that continue to be close to the US. It is clear that President Juan Orlando Hernadez needs the United States to ensure the survival of his rule in Honduras. This demonstrates that Latin America may be returning to that model of government centered around a strongman. The United States has supported regimes of that nature in Latin America and enabled wars to continue for decades in the region. The peril exists that direct US military action could be coming, if indirect interference is no long effective. 

            The world economy's condition can also add to international instability. Europe has not entirely recovered from the debt crisis and the UK's exit from the EU has caused anxiety. There could be a possible trade war with China and the United States only adding to economic tension. China and Russia are clearly becoming rising economic powers. Although Russia is facing sanctions from the United States, Germany still has an economic partnership with Russia. This has protected the Russian Federation, because Germany has gradually become one of Europe's most significant economies. While the West has most of the wealth, Africa and Asia will become more important economically as the 21st century progresses. Africa is rich, yet it is being impoverished by the International Monetary Fund , World Bank , and the neocolonial Western powers. The vast resources of the continent if managed properly could challenge the dominance of the US and European countries. What African countries are doing is establishing economic cooperation with China to counter its former colonizers. A reaction has been generated in which now the US and China are competing economically and geopolitically with one another on the African continent. The conflict for natural resources has cause much conflict. This could only be exacerbated more with the fact that available clean drinking water globally is declining. Water will soon become an important part of the global economy. It may also be the cause of increased warfare. Combined with the competition for oil, this only complicates matters.  

The issues in regards to the South China Sea are  partly based on economics. The possibilities of off shore oil drilling are immense and any country that makes claims to particular areas has a source of revenue. There is the desire to do further exploration,  but tension between China and other Asian nations. The United States wants to stop China's economic and political rise. This explains sudden actions in regards to India and the policy in the Pacific. The new nationalist capitalism that the Trump administration is proposing has a specific goal in mind. It wants to exploit various markets giving the US more advantages in terms of trade, without making obligations to other countries. Neoliberal capitalism is becoming more unstable causing social and political unrest. The United States is in an estimated trillion dollars worth amount of debt. The only reason it remains calm at the moment is that foreign investors have confidence in the US. However, a declining dollar and an uncertain stock market can erode such confidence in America. The system of private central banking at  the moment is fragile. The European Central Bank is seeking to end its stimulus package. The Eurozone has not recovered from the debt crisis and Greece is an example of this economic turmoil. Unemployment and lack of a social safety net are becoming more prevalent. Even when unemployment is low, this may not be a full picture of the state of the workforce. The data does not include people who have stopped looking for work. Another challenge for economy recovery and stability is the issue of wages. If wages remain stagnant, then this will harm the state of the economy. Limited disposable income means that there will be less consumption. Businesses will suffer from a decline in consumers. Corporations will not increase wages unless forced to or by some external change. A business in a free market seeks profit maximization; not the welfare of its employees. Globalization has put the worker at a disadvantage. Outsourcing and limited tariff protections has put workers in a precarious situation. Although the world economy was performing better in 2017 compared to 2010, there remains the challenge of growing debt. This may result in the Eurozone increasing interest rates. There also could be instability coming from across the Atlantic. Donald Trump's tax reform could cause consequences beyond that of the United States of America. Supply side economics does not stimulate growth, rather it has the wealthy extract more funds from the poor and middle class. The stock market could drop further effecting 401 K  programs. International inflation as a result from this creating an atmosphere of quantitative easing. Simultaneously, the gap between rich and poor will expand dramatically, while there is economic growth. The average citizen will not benefit from this economic growth. Whatever increase in wages they will see could be neutralized if inflation continues. Neoliberal capitalism has become unstable and the global financial crisis  was evidence of that. There is the fear that with the repeal of Obama era regulations, another major financial meltdown will occur.  

       There is a global political crisis. The population has grown more distrustful and vexed at their government. Liberal democracies are in a state of decline. While some have  analysts have claimed it was going to be the dominant model of the world, that theory is being questioned. There is the rise of a xenophobic nativist nationalism. This is not only a challenge to liberal democracy. The xenophobic nativist nationalism wants to challenge globalism which has been an international political movement. It favors economic integration under a neoliberal capitalist model and  political supranationalism. The people of the US and Europe are favoring almost quasi-fascist ideas in a time of uncertainty. Immigration has caused the US and Europe to embrace either white nationalist or extreme far-right political parties. Donald Trump has made his belief system of  xenophobic nativist nationalism spread. Italy, Germany, France, and the UK are experiencing an increase in far-right pressure. Eastern Europe has become for far-right since the end of the Cold War and the rise of the refugee crisis. 

As internal instability occurs in nations of the West, the UN has over the past decades has become more of a tool in the imperial project. The United Nations has not promoted peace, but enabled war. The organization wants to present itself as a humanitarian and democratic value defending body, yet it  is unable to be a solution to world problems. Xenophobic nativist nationalism may be a potential threat to the global peace. The excuse to use military action by European powers may come in the form of stopping emigration traffic from war torn countries. The UN also has adopted the concept of humanitarian intervention. The concept of responsibility to protect is presented as a way to save civilians in war zones. The true motive however, is for some countries to advance their geopolitical agendas. The United Nations implement Resolution 1973  which was essential a declaration of war on Libya in 2011. The use of no fly zones was nothing new. This was done to Iraq for twelve years and sanctions crippled the nation. The UN enables Western powers to engage in human rights abuse under the cover of humanitarian intervention. Imperialists have adopted the language of human rights to practice the same type of behavior. The world is still engaged in a global power struggle rather than reaching a consensus or developing a pathway to collaboration. The UN now instead of working for peace continues to act as an agent for regime change. The resolutions directed at Syria and North Korea are a demonstration of how the UN is still dominated by powerful Western countries. Other states such as Israel are not condemned or sanctioned for their numerous abuses in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Israel could possibly increase its involvement in Syria and could initiate a war with Iran. Even if a majority of the population rejects such actions, governments around the world continue to start or expand conflict. The inability to solve internal and external problems makes citizens question the ability and competence of their government systems. Democracy is by its nature a chaotic and inefficient system. Direct democracies do not exist for the sole reason it requires populations to be active and rational in their decision making. What the model that is present in the contemporary world is rule by the upper classes. The liberal democracies have evolved into  nothing more than oligarchies. As income inequality grows, more of the population loses power. Voting would be the only defensive mechanism, however this is a limitation due to the selection of candidates running for office. Both parliamentary and presidential systems have the same issues in regards to strong corporate and business influence in politics. Traditional authoritarian regimes may adopt the structures of liberal democracies, but in practice are still oppressive. The only reason there are systems that resemble democracy is because people are not willing to experiment with alternatives. So the world has either fallen into two political models. The corrupt liberal democracies or  traditional authoritarianism . The political devastation can be seen, yet there is a level of social decline. 

      Society has reached a nadir. The political and economic factors of international instability  are gradually destroying  civilization's social fabric. The refugee crisis and the mass migration across the Mediterranean Sea has cause major humanitarian problems. The damaging effects of warfare and regime change has destroyed lives of people residing in the nations under attack. For those who do survive the dangerous journey from the Middle East or Africa, they face more peril in Europe. Refugees and migrants are targets of  right-wing extremists. Refugees could easily be murdered in the European country they decide to flee to. There is also the problem of accommodation of populations of in coming refugees. The rise in detainment centers hold creates an issue due to the fact people are restrained against their will. Seeing as refugees have limited financial resources these centers become a home in a new land. Camps that are not supervised by any government agency or  private organization have emerged. The Calais migrant camp in France became notorious. It had limited sanitation and comfort for the masses of people arriving. French authorities  demolished  the site, but with refugees having no place to go new sites develop. Violence has occurred in migrant camps with other ethnic groups having conflict with one another. Such events only give power the the far-right and contribute to their growing support. Refugees and migrants become a convenient scapegoat for European political struggles. As European leaders fail to provide a solution to the debt crisis, they blame immigrants, migrants, and refugees for social ills. This deflects attention away from their incompetent leadership and corruption. 

There is also another harsh realization. The mass movement of people also contains a possible criminal element. The majority of  refugees are victims, but there also is the risk that there are some people with less admirable intentions. The Cologne New Year's  Eve  attacks   in 2015 put into question the open door policy for refugees in Germany. It was reported that there were a multitude of sexual assaults and according to police mostly from men of Arab or North African descent. The perpetrators were not brought to justice and the media used this as an excuse to condemn all immigrants, refugees, and migrants. Attacks on non-whites increased several days after the Cologne incident. If this plan of taking refugees and migrants so to be functional there has to be some form of security measures. Integration must happen to prevent two societies that emerge in one country. Not doing this creates a society with an oppressed underclass that is racially based. This process has happened in France and the UK. French Algerians have been excluded from the wider society creating conflict among the white citizens. What has emerged out of this migrant crisis is a new vicious European racism. Such hatreds have also emerged due to a Western identity crisis. For centuries the West though its culture and heritage was superior and now it sees the emergence of non-western countries gaining prominence. This is combined with a revival in Christian fundamentalism which is a part of right-wing circles and mobilized politically. This section of the movement has more influence in America which influences policies in regards to Israel and the Middle East region. Religious fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity, scientific advancement, and  periods of discord. Their idea that religion leads to more stable societies is a myth. Religious fundamentalists want to impose one religion on everyone, rather than making it a choice of the individual. Religion and politics are once more collaborating to a devastating effect. The United States that prides itself on separation of church and state constantly wants to promote Christianity as the nation's religion. Irrationality and mob rule have become common characteristics of both the US and EU countries. The embrace of capitalism and military intervention comes at a cost to social services and infrastructure. The divide  between wealth and extreme poverty has gotten larger. As population growth continues it will further strain a fragile situation. Taking away investment in education, healthcare, and other social services will have negative economic effects in the future. 

      Workers will have limited protection in the future. As pensions and a social safety net disappear many will not be able to retire or have enough savings to sustain themselves. The permanent economic underclass will be either unemployed or underemployed no matter how the market is doing. Many children will grow up in poverty. Low quality education does not prepare youth for an extremely competitive workplace. The post-industrial economy that is information based demands that workers devote themselves to learning new skills. This means the majority will require an education beyond high school. Without higher education, many are shut off from particular occupations and fields. Universities and colleges must find a way to make tuition affordable for the majority of the population to prevent an expansion of an underclass. Even if a student finishes their education, they are left with debt. If wages are stagnant it will be impossible to repay those debts due to student loans. The hope is that after graduation there would be jobs to meet the needs of workers who contribute to the global economy. The middle class could vanish in America and in Europe  as more citizens struggle. The reason the developing world struggles is that social mobility is non-existent. The social consequences are mass poverty,homelessness, and civil unrest. A population that has nothing to lose becomes a dangerous one. A large divide between the destitute and the upper class lays the foundation for revolution. Such an uprising would not be peaceful or be a true freedom struggle. It could descend into a full scale collapse of civilization. Although this may be mere hyperbole,there has been such upheaval throughout history. The 20th century was a period of upheaval with the Great Depression, two World Wars, the Cold War, and the era of US dominance. The economic structure no longer works for the majority of the world. Neoliberal capitalism caused social problems, yet its fall will result in unrest. 

          International stability now seems elusive. The current policies implemented by the US and EU block are inducing more unrest across various continents. The Middle East, Africa, and Asia are subject to external interference. The precarious nature of this is that NATO is expanding. The Cold War was been over, but this military alliance still remains. Russia could be targeted like Libya or the former Yugoslavia. NATO conducted wars of aggression presented as humanitarian acts. The United Nations has gradually become more corrupt by allowing superpower domination and selective justice. It places sanctions on North Korea, yet never condemns Israel's aggression in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia continues to wage a war of aggression in Yemen. There continues to be calls for regime change in Syria. If this were to be done, it would be another Iraq like situation. The only logical conclusion to reduce regional  refugee migration is to stop military strikes. Regime change and nation building should not be part of  foreign policy. Practical approaches should be made to solve international disputes. A paradigm shift must happen so that the nations of the world do not fight one another for power. Doing so creates an international network of rival alliance systems. Such obligations and treaties made between countries will only lead to mass global conflict. The purpose of the United Nations was to prevent such an event from occurring. The devastation that was unleashed during World War II made world leaders realize that collaboration was a better alternative to warfare. The Allies soon drifted apart descending into tension and competition. The post-World War II order was the US and U.S.S.R struggling for dominance of the world. That has since ended yet the old colonial empires and the US seek too remain predominant. The world has gradually become multipolar in terms of international power structure. The US-EU block function on the traditional wars of proxy used during the Cold War.  Such a dated model will not work in a rapidly changing world. Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Libya are centers of international instability.The US, UK, France, and the Gulf monarchies have supplied weapons to various terrorist organizations and armed groups with the intention of removal of certain regimes. While others have fallen this has caused blowback with an increase in terrorism. Germany and the UK have experienced terrorist attacks over the years. These acts of violence are reactions to western military intervention in the Muslim world and the policy of regime change. There is now a new era of international instability that cannot be  reduced. There will have to be a radical change in foreign policy and the goal of international affairs to return the globe to at least a moderate condition.                    

              

   

         

      

Neil De Grasse Tyson on Asserting Truth

The Crisis of Contemporary Society

Technology has given human civilization more material comfort than ever before. Often commentators claim their is progress in the world with more democratic governments and free markets. This is an illusion. Safety, comfort, and stability are not equally distributed around the world. Poverty, war, and racism will continue to be persistent problems with limited hope of a permanent or sustainable solution. The world of the 21 century is more unstable economically and politically. Global society has entered a state of general malaise. It effects populations at a large level and a personal one. Mental and physical health can be effected. Life has become extremely regimented even in a country that considers itself democratic. There are more feelings of isolation,even though mass communication is widely available. Societies are losing meaningful philosophical and ideological value systems. They have no alternative to older paradigms and thus engage in erratic or bizarre behavior. A nihilistic description of this perspective is not accurate, because frustration projects itself in public discord. At one time the concept of the future was an idea that seemed thrilling and prosperous. The dream has led to a nightmare and a existential crisis. The realization that the world can change for the better has died and been replaced with either disillusion or lack of hope. A revolution in politics, culture, and society may not be entirely blocked by the power structure, but by the frustration and lack of solicitous vigor. Change can happen, yet it will not be the revolutionary change to depose oppressive structures. Society is thus frozen unable to improve or advance.
      Labor was at one time a source of fulfillment to people. The modern day workforce has been turned into a regimented revolving door. The attitude that has emerged from the post-World War II period is to get a high paying job and become a member of the corporate machine. It is not about pursing a career that is satisfying to an individual, but the one that can make the most money. There are workers who have reached the top of the corporate structure, yet still find themselves in a state of melancholy. This may be due to the fact their work is monotonous and does not produce anything of significance. Management positions and workers in service sector jobs do not produce an actual product. This has to an extent been dissolved by advancing technology and a rapidly changing economy. Manufacturing or liberal arts related occupations may disappear in the distant future in which robot labor will replace human labor.  Those who cannot adjust will be trapped in a permanent underclass. To an extent this has happened with elements of the workforce. There are people who have not received a university education and do not have the skills to remain competitive. The other part of the spectrum has a workforce with a university degree or higher, but few jobs available. Those who do procure employment either victims of stagnant wages or limited opportunities for advancement. Workers go from company to company seeking to sustain themselves and have enough savings for retirement. The majority of the workforce is trapped in jobs they hate or work they feel that does not contribute to anything. This may explain the increase in depression or anxiety in particular developed nations.
      The lack of a belief system has been replaced by an obsessive materialism. A person's value is no longer based on their character, rather their status or the amount of wealth they have. This distortion in thought has resulted in various problems. It even ruins interpersonal relations among various societies .The traditional conservatives say lack of religion is what causes most of the societal issues of today. This is a false statement on the basis that any thought system that seeks to reduce critical thinking  will never improve anything. Religion has at least in the modern world, been used a means of creating cohesion in fractured societies and states. People who have many personal challenges use it as a coping mechanism when there is no other solution.The developed nations either put a huge amount of investment in technologies that are frivolous such as phones, cameras, or various entertainment media. Consumption has become so lucrative the public does not even understand how much they have become controlled by advertisement. It has become so prevalent that it has rewired human behavior to only think in terms of consumerism.  Consumerism has become a religion unto itself. Religion is in many ways an empty system of conviction. It expects people to believe a set of ideas without a rational thought process. Politics also does this in a similar fashion and is having a crisis of its own. The Western democracies and the experiments in the developing world  constantly speak of values of freedom and human rights. However, their own societies are unequal and engage in warfare. This rhetoric and contradictory behavior  proves that there is not a solid foundation for those beliefs. The superficial presentation demonstrates the death of a genuine political  belief system. Political philosophy has been reduced to sound bites, wedge issues, and a hostile binary political faction system. Contemporary society has lost the love for higher ideas in regards to ethics, epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics.  What has been put in its place is a hedonistic consumerism.
      Public  health has become a major issue. The longer people live the more ailments they will face. The modern day lifestyle of fast food and sugar based diets has caused heart disease and weight related illness. While there still are nations that have food insecurity, there are some that are being killed by too much consumption. This will cause strain on healthcare systems. A rapidly growing aging population and youthful people in poor health will be a challenge. The population gets less exercise and is more comfortable with a sedentary lifestyle. obesity will not just effect one region of the globe,it will spread. The lack of honest food labeling and nutritional contents can be blamed, but there is another element.When one lives in a land of abundance, there is a belief that their should be no self control. Eating, drinking, or doing anything in excess is seen as a right. People can have knowledge of the negative health effects of a behavior, but will continue to do so if it provides them an escape. This also explains drug addiction to an extent. Excess becomes a way to escape from particular life struggles or challenges that are not easily solved. Public health is not just effected by personal choice; environment plays a role. The dramatic climate shift occurring on Earth combined with increases in air pollution will cause more chronic illness. Respiratory system diseases will gradually become more prevalent. It is unknown what effect this will have on the nervous system. The current age seems to pose more health problems. The more terrifying aspect is that bacteria has the ability to become resistant to antibiotics. Microorganisms evolve just like other animals and it appears they are responding to human made medicine. The maintenance of public health will become a even greater problem in the future,if no action is taken.
        There is a general sense of frustration and malaise in global society. This is not anything new. Discord has been a part of human civilization and been the catalyst for revolutions. The difference now is that more people are so disillusioned that they rather not even try to challenge the established order. They either disengage from the society only focusing on themselves internally. The contemporary era has become one of manufactured dissent. False movements emerge out of social media or organizations with ulterior motives. There have been activists who have been attempting to raise awareness of certain issues for decades, but are either marginalized or silenced. Protest means nothing if it is done in a manner that will be effective. Disruption is not the goal itself, it is designed to stop the mechanisms of the oppression or injustice. The modern day protest does not function in the most effective manner and as a result there is no change. People all around the world are frustrated with their government or the decline in their communities. Neoliberal capitalism has generated more poverty internationally and the gap continues to grow between classes. Their is also a disparity between nation-states and ethnic groups. The West continues to intervene in African , South American, and Asian nations. Neocolonialism and racism are policies of the United States and the European Union. The White man's burden has been replaced with democracy promotion under the cover of protecting human rights.  The world population hears on a consistent basis news of war and mass migrations that were induced by Western aggression. World leaders no longer seek to change or improve the world. They have become simple managers with limited policy objectives. This is culpable for such an increase in anger and distrust of government globally. The early 21st century is the age of protest, yet this unconventional participation has no direction or defined goals other than just to oppose the government. Sadly, the frustration that is generated by various populations is not directed in a positive way. There is a wave of nativist  xenophobic racism sweeping across Europe and the US born out of economic turmoil, societal decline, and disappointment with the state of affairs.
     There will be more challenges as the 21st century progresses. The future has been in some literature portrayed as a utopia. Utopia is fiction. The world will never reach a state of calm or peace. Humanity's nature to destroy and conquer is too powerful to overcome. Conflict has been the driving force of societies and states. Conflict does not have to be open warfare. It can simply be division among a community, groups, states, or political governance system. While individual freedom should be valued, there needs to be a level of cohesion to keep society functional. Due to various factors that cohesion is eroding. Around the world people are dividing themselves more so around ethnic, religious, and national lines. This just increases chances of larger conflicts erupting. The lugubrious prospects of the decades to come make many worry. It was erroneously thought that their would be an end of history. However, their have not yet been new political systems or ideologies to say that liberal democracy and its values will be triumphant as a global system. There will still be many competing systems of conviction. The contemporary crisis of society is both  personal and within a wider community.  It will be harder for certain people to adjust to the rapid cultural, technological, and social changes. The rural areas will gradually disappear giving way to more urbanization. Mechanization and robotics may make employment limited unless some form of universal income is implemented. Labor, public health, and dealing with discord as well as nihilism  must be top priorities for any leader. The unusual aspect of this situation is that possessions create the illusion of prosperity. The countries that are considered developed still have a working class that is not allowed to advance itself.  The world needs a paradigm shift for the sake of its survival.       

Knowledge of Self

The Myth of a New Cold War

Rising Russian power has caused many to suspect that a new Cold War is developing. This international situation with Russia and the West is not a Cold War, rather the rise of multipolarity in global politics. The US and EU countries do not want to see a new international order. NATO continues to expand in Eastern European nations with involvement across the world. The Cold War of the 20th century was a different political situation. This was a struggle between two competing economic and political systems. The world of the contemporary era is more complex. Russia, China, India, and possibly South Africa as well as Brazil are rising powers. The United States has to comprehend the political reality that it will no longer be the sole superpower. Alliances and power relations will change. Commentators and foreign policy analysts fail to realize this shift in global affairs. The phrase a new Cold War becomes nothing more than a call for mobilization against Russia. Instead of realizing that Russia could be of political assistance on some common international issues, antagonism has become official policy. The only way the world can maintain stability or reach some level of peace is through cooperation. The new Cold War myth is designed to continue conflict, instigate future hostility, and maintain relevance for a dated military alliance. 

      The Cold War has to understood in a historical context. Otherwise, this term which is a misnomer will induce irrational trepidation. The Cold War was a geopolitical struggle between the United States and Soviet Union. The defeat of fascism left a power void, which these two nations would fill. When World War II ended it was a radically different world. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R would fight wars of proxy around the world. The Iron Curtain divided Europe, while the former colonies of France and the British Empire fought for independence. The world was now divided in a bipolar political power structure, with a Non-Aligned Movement between communist East and Capitalist West. The Non-Aligned Movement never favored any superpower, but found themselves swept up in Cold War tension and conflict. Indochina, Korea, and Afghanistan would become major battle zones of the Cold War. The US chose a policy of being against both anti-colonial movements and communist governments. The Soviet Union would align itself with anti-colonial movements or nations if it suited its interest. While it preached anti-imperialism it refused to extend this message to the peoples of Central Asia, the Baltic states, or Eastern Europe. Since the 19th century, Russia had extended its imperial power into Central Asia at the expense of Tatar and other Asian peoples. The reason Eastern Europe came under a sphere of influence was to make it a barrier to future invasion. Joseph Stalin believed that Germany and Japan would rise again. He was not convinced that the West would come to the aid of the Soviet Union if another World War were to break out. The failure of the victorious Allied nations to keep the wartime alliance going caused the Cold War.

There could have been genuine efforts for a sustainable peace. This did not happen due to the differences over ideology and economics. The military industrial complex had become too powerful and gradually arms production became a major part of the US economy. Constant warfare was the only way to sustain this model of economic production. Neoliberal capitalism requires new markets to conquer to remain relevant. This explains why the US was more concerned about maintaining strongmen in particular nations. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was brought back to power by the US and UK, after the removal of  Mohammad Mossadegh  in Iran. Cuba had been under US domination until Fidel Castro deposed the Fulgencio Bastia regime. The year 1953 was a during point after the CIA intervention in Iran. The US would continue to overthrow both democratically elected governments, communist ones, and others which simply disagreed with its policies. The problem with US policy was that it saw communism as a monolith. This was not the reality, because many socialist and communist states developed their own political versions. Broz Tito's Yugoslavia and Enver Hoxha's Albania did not pledge complete loyalty to the Soviet block. Mao Zedong 's version of communism was a mix of populism, Chinese nationalism, and his own theories about revolution. China and the Soviet Union during the Khruschev period had strained relations. The African socialism of  Kwame Nkhrumah and Julius Nyerere combined Pan-Africanism   with Marxist philosophy. Gamal Nasser's socialism was tailored to Pan-Arab nationalist thought. Not all the Eastern block nations were completely  submissive to the dictates of Moscow. Nicolae Ceausescu the general secretary of Romania condemned the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia and refused to let Soviet troops cross over through Romania. The reason he was not challenged was because he played both the West and the East against one another using both. Romania had more independence compared to other Eastern block nations. 

International politics was just as complicated in the Cold War past as it was today. There was more danger due to nuclear arms races and destabilization campaigns through covert action. The possibility of nuclear annihilation was high. Both superpowers were doing nuclear tests and were building massive arsenals. The Cuban missile crisis was a demonstration of nuclear brinkmanship in which both powers would test the limits of each others endurance to pressure. President John F. Kennedy made the error of attempting to overthrow the Castro government with Cuban exiles. The Bay of Pigs invasion resulted in failure,but also made Fidel Castro seek protection from the Soviet Union. To deter another invasion Fidel Castro and Nikita Khruschev decided to erect nuclear installations. Kennedy's response was to impose a blockade. This was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. An agreement was reached in which the US would dismantle its installations from Turkey and the U.S.S.R would do the same for Cuba. There was the possibility that if Kennedy had lived there would have been peace and eventual normalization of relations with the Soviets. If Khruschev did not fall from power, and Leonid Brezhnev did not become General Secretary the Soviet Union might have followed a different course. Unfortunately, the series of events took another route. Lyndon B. Johnson became president and expanded the US role in Vietnam. Full scale war came by 1965 and continued until 1973. While the Truman Doctrine proposed containment, the Kennedy Doctrine went to expand that to preventing communism anywhere in the western hemisphere. Working from these two policies Johnson wanted it to be eliminated militarily. The reason the Dominican Republic was invaded and involvement in Indochina continued was that simple containment was not enough. The United States was seeking elimination of communism as a global force. This however was not possible unless there was war with the Soviet Union itself. Richard M. Nixon realized he could exploit the Sino-Soviet split as means to solve the problem of the Vietnam War. The US became victim to its own policies and South Vietnam collapsed in 1975. The Nixon Doctrine wanted to hand responsibility for security over to allies rather than the US providing assistance. After the loss of Vietnam the US was damaged in national and psychological sense. While America Suffered a major defeat, the Soviet Union was having economic and political challenges of its own. 

          The close of the Cold War marks a significant turning point in history. The world would see new countries emerge, but the US would remain the sole superpower. Like most powerful nations it would abuse weaker nations around the world. The US continued to intervene in various nations including Iraq and Somalia. The NATO alliance was not dismantled, but became more belligerent in countries in Europe and Asia. Yugoslavia  was attacked, specifically Kosovo and NATO since 2001 has been on extended mission in Afghanistan. The world was gradually becoming more complicated. The United States found itself in a world in which there was no opposing force to balance its power. This posed a problem. The reason was that there would be no justification for maintaining a military industrial complex or keeping NATO relevant. The 9/11 attacks gave a justification for perpetual warfare. The US was then embarking on a war of terror, which was in reality a method of  enforcing regime change and imposing particular political systems globally. Terrorism has existed in various form throughout human history, but it is unlikely that small armed groups would defeat the US by force. The United States wants to be the hegemon of the world and formulates its foreign policy to  prevent rising powers from being competitors. Russia and China are seen as threats, when they may not be. The Cold War was a struggle between two superpowers. The current situation is that the US has a war on  international  multipolarity political power system. The response from the US-EU block is a violent one. A better course would be to resolve issues through negotiation with Russia, rather than belligerence. This is not possible, due to the fact the US needs an existential threat. Without one, the military machine and the identity of the country suffers. The end of the Cold War may not have been a triumph. The result has created more instability and crisis spanning multiple continents. 

         The US and Russia tension does have roots in the Cold War past, but the current situation is far more complex. Vladimir Putin is not seeking rival of the Soviet Union, rather he is attempting Pan-Slavic revival. This former movement developed in the 19th century when the Slavs were under Austrian and German domination. It was this ethnic nationalism that was causing the decline of  the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There has been a divide between East European and Western European. The tension is based on that past memory of West European presence in traditional Slavic lands. The rise of Yugoslavia and the experiment with Soviet communism, Pan-Slavism  declined in terms of having ideological and political influence. There were obvious conflicts between Slavic peoples. Russia and Poland have had a bitter history between invasions and partitions. This explains why now Poland has become closer to the United States and NATO. The Putin presidency is seeking some form of Pan-Slavism , but not through forceful conquest. Russia maintains close relationships with Belarus and Hungary. These nations unlike their neighbors do not want the follow the political and economic system of the European Union. Vicktor Orban and Alexander Lukashenko will most likely be drawn closer to Russia out of objection to EU policies. Vladimir Putin's Pan-Slavic revival involves developing long term strategic partnerships with particular Eastern European nations. The current problem is Ukraine in which the US has influenced since its independence.  

The US AID organization was involved in funding opposition parties. Ukraine became unstable under Vicktor Yanukoych and it was clear the West wanted a leader more in line with their orbit. Russia saw that the sudden protests were a pretext for intervention. Yanukoych was not removed by legal means, but by mobs from far-right extremist elements and pro-EU factions. Ukraine, if it had a competent leader could have acted as a fulcrum to both West and East Europe. The divide became even worse with the sanctions placed on the Russian Federation. This was a major error in the Obama administration, because it cause a sudden surge in tension. This began prior with NATO's invasion of Libya. Russia supported the UN resolution under the context of responsibility to protect. There was a belief that there was not going to be a change in regime in Libya. When this happened, Russia felt betrayed in a way. US behavior in both Ukraine and Libya demonstrate differences in the ideology of foreign affairs. The United States still wants to do whatever it wants to any nation without repercussion. Neoconservative doctrine has become the foreign policy of the US. 

Nation building, aggressive war, and regime change have caused the image of the US to be damaged around the world. The rhetoric of promoting democracy or human rights is designed to mask the vicious contest of the US attempting to maintain hegemony. The reality is that Russia, China, and more countries possibly from the Global South will be world powers. A campaign that is designed to prevent nations from developing peacefully will only result in mass resistance to the oppressor power. This resistance can take many forms. It could either be armed conflict or sabotage. Russia most likely hacked the DNC as a form of revenge in response to US interference in Ukraine. There is evidence that the Trump campaign  had contact with Russian individuals associated with the  federation government. President Putin denies that such cyber espionage occurred, however both the US and Russia have done this. There is the idea that Vladimir Putin favored Trump rather than Clinton. Whoever is in office a general anti-Russian sentiment will be present. Many times Donald Trump has been accused of being a puppet of Vladimir Putin. This is an exaggeration. Donald Trump has not been able to improve US-Russia relations or reach a common consensus. Trump continues to have the US more involved in Syria and has become more bellicose in regards to North Korea. These issues will certainly put the US and Russia in conflict with one another. Removal or attacks on either Kim Jong Un or Bashir Al-Assad will result in a Russian military response. Russia has been assisting Syria in fighting armed groups aligned with the US and ISIS. Syria is one of Russia's important allies in the Middle East. Donald Trump wants to counter this by arming Saudi Arabia and Israel to act as possible attackers against Syria and Iran. Regional conflicts are attracting major world powers who then escalate them into possible mass global conflict. Donald Trump is not capable of brokering a peace nor understanding the intricacies  of Middle Eastern politics. One can conclude that US-Russian relations will never reach  cordial status.   

         Another reason the myth of a new Cold War is being promoted is due to the mass media and Clinton aligned Democrats. Mainstream media outlets almost imply that Hillary Clinton lost due to Russian meddling or espionage in the 2016 election. Donald Trump won because of  racism, hate, and an uneducated section of the population that voted for the first time. The Democratic Party cannot come to terms with the fact that they chose the wrong candidate. Bernie Sanders had brought more younger voters into the party and  the party did not aggressively go after them for the cause of Clinton. Similar to the Cold War there has become more anti-Russian rhetoric on US media. Putin is demonized almost made into a Saddam Hussein like figure. The way Russia is discussed it parallels the anti-communist rhetoric of the McCarthy era. The difference is that we are not living in a world of bipolar international politics. The international stage has become open to other states to rise. This gives the United States a feeling of inadequacy and insecurity. Economic struggles and  internal strife cause the US to search for a scapegoat. The blame is either placed on Russia, China, liberal politics, or the entire Middle Eastern region. The unfortunate element is that the American public has such little knowledge about Russia or Europe, they will believe anything presented on mainstream media. The section of American conservatives who hate the media do so for the sole reason they believe it is part of a "left-wing conspiracy." Such accusations are false seeing as the majority of  American news outlets are either pro-war or favor some form of American exceptionalism. The conservative argument is anger that is directed at people who do not share their values or convictions. CNN and Fox News both present Russia as a threat to international peace. The Russia -US tension has extended into media, with the US government wanting Russia Today to register as a foreign agent. RT is just like any other 24 hour news channel, yet it is now shown as some form of propaganda arm of the Kremlin. This simply is not true. RT America has employed former CNN anchors such as Larry King and Ed Shultz. This makes a viewer question the channel's credibility of being different from other media. These facts a ignored to promote a simple narrative that the US is fighting a Russian takeover of the world. 

           The US is not in conflict with only Russia, but multipolarity as a system of international affairs. The United States since the end of World War II acted as a successor to the collapsing British Empire. The military interventions at some stage will cause economic decline in the US. The Cold War had more of a balance of power between the two superpowers and the Third World. When the Soviet Union fell there was a wave of instability in the world. The United States did not have another power to restrain it. This meant it could abuse its sole superpower status. The Iraq War became a turning point and other nations took notice. The Russian Federation chose a path of regaining its past military strength, while simultaneously becoming more involved in the Global South nations. Russia continues to reach out to Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, China, Greece, and Germany. The relationship with Germany is especially important. Chancellor Angela Merkel  understands that having business ties to Russia can maintain a functioning economy. The other European nations like the UK and France may not associate with a country that the US has tensions with to complicate their own alliances with America. Germany has in effect had its competitors removed from investment in Russia. This will  only increase Germany's power and it may become one of the major leading powers on the European continent . Russia and China have become closer in terms of economic and military collaboration. The world is not divided between a free world and a communist east. There continues to be a divide in foreign policy. Russia wants a Pan-Slavic revival and the US still wants to maintain a neoconservative world view. There is limited possibility for peace unless some perspectives change. If  Russia-US relations are to improve, NATO build up must cease and there has to be an agreement on both Ukraine and Syria. The myth of a new Cold War is nothing more than an excuse to initiate possible conflict with the Russian Federation. Such a conflict would be devastating and the world would not recover. The Cold War ended comparatively peaceful, but the nature of this US-Russia tension could result in a wider conflict.            

            

   

   

Zimbabwe Under Siege

Zimbabwe is undergoing a major political crisis. The military has appeared to have launched a coup and placed President Robert Mugabe under house arrest. This may have been temporary, because President Mugabe made a public appearance. There has clearly been an increase in political factionalism within ZANU-PF. Questions still remain about a successor to the 93 year old president and what the future of the nations will be. President Mugabe has support, yet some citizens took to the streets to call for his resignation. It is unclear just how many approve or disapprove of his rule during the current situation. The West and the mass media are already showing their jubilation and bias, hoping to see Zimbabwe collapse. The lugubrious fact about the crisis is that was internal. There is no evidence entirely to suggest that China, the US, or Zimbabwe's traditional adversary the UK had involvement. The military insisted that this was not coup even though soldiers were taking over public spaces and media outlets in the country. The reason for this explanation was probably an attempt to avoid sanctions from the African Union. It could also be that the military was attempting to stop Grace Mugabe from taking the presidency. The First Lady's rise has caused much tension and disarray in the political landscape in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe's refusal to name a successor also added to the current crisis in the country. It will be only a matter of time before the EU countries use this as an excuse to intervene, possibly with the force of NATO. South Africa is in a way preventing such an event by playing a mediating role between President Mugabe and the military. As the crisis progresses it is obvious that Zimbabwe is under siege by both domestic and foreign enemies. The President should be allowed to finish his term as designated by the constitution. If he is to pass on during his service in office, a successor will serve until elections are held. A leader should not be removed by an armed force or by street demonstrations. This promotes a political culture of mob violence and military rule. If President Mugabe is to be impeached there should be a legitimate reason under the law to do so. Arguing this legally would be a challenge. Robert Mugabe is one of the last leaders of the liberation struggle era and one of the few African leaders keeping Pan-African ideology alive. This new attack on Zimbabwe and its leader is a way to reverse the progress made from independence. 

           The heart of the problem is rooted in the dismissal of  two important political figures. Joice Muju was vice president serving from 2004 to 2014 and was in many regards a good candidate for a successor. However, the political ambitions of Grace Mugabe targeted officials that were close to President Mugabe's inner circle. She wanted to be the president of Zimbabwe and attempted to ruthlessly remove obstacles in her way. This calculated plan to seize power resulted in one fatal error. Removing Emmerson Mnangagwa as vice president sparked outrage among the military. He had been a veteran of the Rhodesian Bush War and earned much respect from the military establishment. Grace Mugabe does not have the same stature or support. While Grace built up a base of followers, many in the military establishment despised the idea of a Grace Mugabe presidency. She was head of the Women's Wing of ZANU-PF and has been First Lady since 1996.When Muju was removed this marked a point in which Grace Mugabe became more politically powerful. She almost began to resemble a Lady Macbeth like figure with in Zimbabwe's political system. It appears that after the military incident in November of 2017, that Grace has lost most of her political power. Her whereabouts are unknown, but there is indication she could still be under house arrest. There is a possibility that she may flee the country seeking asylum. Emmerson Mnangagwa currently has been in South Africa since his removal from the vice presidency. 

There is a power struggle for the presidency when a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe emerges. There remains uncertainty about who will run the country then. The ZANU-PF party is split among members who still support President Mugabe and other who believe that there should be transition to a successor. What must be avoided is a possible civil war that could emerge in a rapidly changing landscape. 

          President Robert Mugabe has become embattled. His fight is not just for the presidency, legacy, or  preservation of power; it is is for Zimbabwe's national sovereignty. Zimbabwe had to fight a long war of liberation against the British and white minority rule. The Ian Smith regime with its abuses, left many Zimbabweans in fear. Rape, torture, and murder by colonial settlers was common place. These were not the only crimes committed, but also the theft of land. During the 1960s  land was stolen by whites by means of force. The UK and the white minority government realized that they could no longer hold onto Zimbabwe. The Lancaster House Agreement was designed to redress the issue of stolen land. Years passed with limited action. The UK did not uphold its part of the agreement. This was when President Mugabe decided to retake what was rightfully property of the citizens of Zimbabwe. The year 2000 marked a decline in UK- Zimbabwe relations under Tony Blair. The US imposed sanctions over the controversial 2002 election. While that election had irregularities, the US was doing this for another reason. This was the early stages of America's new era of the War on Terrorism. This policy of aggressive war was targeting any stage that challenged US hegemony. Under a neoconservative foreign policy direction the US would attempt nation building projects and impose their version of a democratic system around the world. Zimbabwe became another target just like Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Iraq which would be invaded by 2003. Robert Mugabe had relations with various countries that the US either started conflicts with or was attempting to attack or undermine. Zimbabwe maintained close relations with the People's Republic of China and Iran. Zimbabwe was a close ally of Libya under Qaddafi. During the NATO invasion Robert Mugabe condemned the military action and called the death of both Muammar Qaddafi and US ambassador as tragic. Robert Mugabe's solidarity with Global South Nations made him unpopular among the EU-US block nations. When a nations refuses to submit to a more potent nation, it faces retaliation. If it were not for China's bilateral economic agreements, the economy of Zimbabwe would have been in an even worse condition. It should be remembered that when Zimbabwe was economically stable, whites controlled most of that wealth. Zimbabweans were excluded from the market place and were merely laborers in the colonial system.  

Zanu-PF was attempting to undo the damage caused by colonial rule. This meant giving the land back to the people and increasing productivity. Zimbabwe was making progress in tobacco production. The country continued to look for other countries to boost investment. Iran was one of the nations in which Zimbabwe wants to do business with. Robert Mugabe met with Hassan Rouhani to discuss trade agreements and possible long term political and cultural exchange. The conflicts occurring in the Middle East and the tension with Iran cause those who associate with it to be caught up in an expansive international conflict. Iran has been alienated by its Arab neighbors excluding Oman, Qatar, Syria, and Iraq. Zimbabwe realized that the oil rich nation could be helpful in terms of investment. Even though the two countries are on different political trajectories, this does not mean they cannot collaborate on common goals or concerns. 

Zimbabwe has an immense amount of natural resources, which include coal, chromium ore, platinum, gold, nickle, copper, iron ore, and diamonds. A Mugabe presidency will not allow Western countries to forcefully take such valuable commodities. The reason the West wants to see President Mugabe fall is so they can get access to those natural resources. They also want to prevent a strong alliance between African and Asian nations with could challenge the US-EU block. Although the European colonial empires are gone, the behavior and attitudes of  these nations has not disappeared. The UK, US, France, Italy, and Germany still believe they have the right to rule and subjugate people of color around the world. Robert Mugabe represents that older generation that took freedom from imperial oppressors. His life and actions have inspired many to continue to fight for the African continent and undermine neo-colonial projects. Some wonder why did he continue to run for president for so long. The more negative answer is that he is a power mad tyrant or authoritarian. This is an image that has been presented by the mainstream Western media, but fails to remember that there was a time in which there was power sharing with the Movement for Democracy. Zanu and Zapu were once harsh competitors, but formed one party under the framework envisioned by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe. Other leaders are not so accommodating on the African continent. Yoweri Museveni, Idris Deby, and Omar Al-Bashir fit the description of true authoritarians. Robert Mugabe hardly falls into that category. Robert Mugabe continues to lead mainly, because he fears that Zimbabwe will revert back to its colonial past. The trepidation comes from a more belligerent US and a UK that is more xenophobic than ever. The fear of losing what was fought for is a real possibility. If Zimbabwe cannot solve its own internal problems, it invites foreign intervention. This thought has probably came to President Mugabe, who is determined to finish his term. 

        There has been international responses. South Africa wants to see a Zimbabwe which is stable and may not be entirely willing to see a transition occur. A swift change from an old to new administration could mean a large amount of refugees. South Africa under President Jacob Zuma has faced economic and social turmoil. It may not have the capacity to deal with such a large influx of refugees. This could lead to more xenophobic violence outbreaks. This has happened before in South Africa and at this moment Jacob Zuma  may not have the ability to address the the crisis. There has been discussion of the Mugabes going into exile. If this were to happen it may either be Angola or Namibia. Such a proposal would cause more of a controversy,because it will strain relations among the nations of the Southern African Development Community. The African Union must do all that it can to prevent violence or European interference. The street protests have thus so far have been peaceful, but are problematic. It is probable this will be used as a pretext for a US or UK invasion. The responsibility to protect has been used to abuse countries who do not follow Western foreign  policy  objectives. A forced Mugabe exit would certainly cause shock waves across Africa. Uganda, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, and Mauritania would most likely become more oppressive thinking that there could be some form of continent wide regime change. Africa has been under siege and Zimbabwe is another nation under attack. The rise of Africom  and the NATO strike at Libya is evidence of  neocolonialism. Zimbabwe is already under sanctions from most EU countries. African nations still have normal relations with the country, while South Africa has its strongest support. Zimbabwe if it does not solve its own political crisis could become an area of proxy war between China and the United States. The US wants to stop China's advancement in Africa, by means of  military force and support from collaborator governments. It is unlikely that China would come to Zimbabwe's aid if the situation became violent. They did not come to Libya's aid and voted for UN resolution 1973. Unfortunately, internal instability will attract other world powers. The solution to this crisis may not even be President Mugabe himself. 

        Political factionalism has been a constant struggle for Zimbabwe since independence. ZANU-PF factions are fighting one another. This political party was formed out of two liberation organizations during the 1980s. ZANU and ZAPU were rivals. The Dissent's War  between 1982 to 1987 had the two liberation organizations at war to control the country. Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe reached a power sharing deal ending internal strife. The internal division is also related to ethnicity. Shona and Ndebele are still in a state of suspicion of one another. The one party state was established and modeled on a Tanzanian system to avoid possible ethnic conflict. Even with the unification of two liberation organizations there were problems with opposition groups. The Movement for Democracy became a major opposition party in the 2000s. Morgan Tsvangirai was seeking to win the presidency in 2013, but Mugabe got 61% of the vote. There was violence that broke out between MDC and ZANU-PF supporters. Another power sharing deal was reached preventing possible war. Zimbabwe may not be able to function on a Western style multiparty system. A imposed or forced removal of President Mugabe will result in a wider deterioration of the state. Political factionalism will escalate to open warfare, if there is no reasonable solution. The military is apparently seeking a means to govern while presenting a facade of civilian rule. Similar to how the military establishment functions in Thailand or Myanmar generals would still have massive influence in government. There also could be division in the military establishment of Zimbabwe. However, the National Zimbabwe War Veterans Association seems to have turned against President Mugabe. This sudden reversal began around 2016 and continued to erode a pivotal part of his base. The youth of the country are becoming restless and they are the future of the country. What should have been done was to mentor the youth wings of the party. The old guard should have molded new leaders that did not think in the same manner. The emphasis should be on unity, socialist principles of the party, and Pan-African ideology. These are values that should be presented to the public and youth to ensure a stable and prosperous Zimbabwe. Sadly, the country has descended into hostility and conflict. 

       The pathway to a peaceful solution has to involve several procedures. President Mugabe must finish his term. Removing him by military force or street protest encourages a future of unstable power transition. Power transition has been a challenge for African states since independence. When a longtime leader is removed or leaves office there is a level of disorder. A standard procedure and following the constitution will prevent mob violence or civil disturbance. If there is an issue with a president being in office too long, then term limits should be imposed. The number can vary, however it should be respected. If there remains a problem with electoral fraud, then there should be supervision under the African Union. Yet, national sovereignty must be observed. Other African nations should not interfere with the internal affairs of states. It could be that South Africa will have more influence in a weakened Zimbabwe. There is also a probability that Zambia and Mozambique may send troops with South Africa for stabilization efforts. This must be avoided. A civil war in Zimbabwe could escalate to a level similar to the Second Congolese Civil War. If there is to be an abrupt power transition, Joice Mujuru should be the successor. A  Grace Mugabe presidency would actually be authoritarian and oppressive. She should have no political future for inducing the political crisis that has developed. Emmerson Mnangagwa  would not be a suitable choice either.His military connections would surely mold the country in a junta type of government. If President Mugabe is able to avoid impeachment or removal from office, he should finally decide who will be his successor. This has been delayed for decades and it is time to make that choice. Zimbabwe's future seems uncertain, but it can have a positive one if citizens decide to make it so. Zimbabwe must be ready to fight, because its existence will be under attack.