Is a massive breakdown in global systems coming? My response

Is a massive breakdown in global systems coming?  

This question has been posed a few times over the past couple of months by people I consider well-informed and thoughtful. And it is easy to see why.  

But before jumping in, I'll declare my own colours. I call myself a “Apocal-optimist”. Yes, an apocalypse is coming, but I'm optimistic about the developed world's mid to longer-term prospects. Too many potential events and situations could lead to a macro-system breakdown, and it is difficult, and a bit crass, to discount or ignore the massive scale of suffering that will occur as some global systems break down. Yet, there are also both inertial and positive feedback and response mechanisms that may mitigate those situations. I have great confidence in humanity and the human mind.  

So, let's begin with why the world is so scary today. Across Africa, there seem to be more coups, civil unrest, and the spectre of starvation linked to civil war and climate change. In the Middle East, there is the real danger of a far wider war, pulling the US (and allies) into a regional war with Iran (and proxies). Add to that the ongoing war in Ukraine and the appearance at least of weakening resolve in European states. Meanwhile, in the East, China is sounding more bellicose by the day in relation to Taiwan. Global migration and illegal migration appear to be on the verge of overwhelming North America and Europe. Climate Change is impacting temperatures, and summer is becoming “fire season” as much as tourist season, and who knows what is happening to Greenland and the Antarctic.  

And to be clear, this is not a taxonomy of the potential regional or global “system breakdown” trigger situations. The list is too long, so I’ll attempt to discuss, at a very high level, a few situations that serve as proxies for so many others. While each may be "separate", in reality, there is a level of overlap and linkage that would be difficult to communicate in these few words. This is without even considering the risks associated with runaway AI, which I'll purposefully ignore for now.

Depressed and worried yet?  

We should be, because there is a lot of uncertainty and instability, and our complex systems appear to be reaching the boundaries of fragility, boundaries that are not marked by points on a graph or dates on a calendar.  

Self-righting nature of systems  

Many of our systems are very fragile and under extreme stress. But not all. And many of our systems have automatic and unconscious feedback mechanisms that provide stability and recovery. Financial markets, for example, have “corrections” that can appear to be a market system failure. Yet these corrections are merely the unconscious processes by which the complex systems of markets ensure that the financial system does not collapse. Capital disappears, but also is reallocated to more productive (or expected to be more productive) economic activities. And when it appears that the financial markets will collapse, the ultimate backup of sovereign intervention reduces the risk and overall impact. To be sure, even this backup is not always successful.  

Modern societies are complex by nature, and it is easy to extrapolate failures in parts of the system(s) as harbingers of overall system or social collapse. This is not to suggest that there will not be a major breakdown in global systems, but only to confirm that most systems are self-righting and are more robust than we can see. Boats tend to float with the right bits upward. Yachts, with their ballast keels, are even more likely to float right-side-up.  But in the biggest storms or the unexpected super-wave, boats and even ships may capsize or be irreparably damaged.  

And when a system or systems collapse, it is not automatically easy to point to a single cause. The cause of the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald, with the loss of all 29 aboard, remains undetermined, with multiple potential root causes and exacerbating causes. “The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times”, and then 30 times on 2 May 2023.

Some systems are collapsing, while others are shifting and reshaping.  

Europe  

The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted in a period of concern that reduced or even halted access to grain by much of the developing world was going to result in mass starvation. That was avoided by the deals negotiated to ensure that grain could be exported from both Russian and Ukrainian ports. The alternative would have required external party guarantees of safe passage, potentially bringing others into the conflict. The danger of a much wider conflict was very real, and remains very real, today or in the coming decade.  

If anything, though, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the strength of the (NATO) system of alliances that have been instrumental in keeping the peace for many decades. Neither of the belligerents are members of NATO, and the war itself has encouraged two countries to join NATO that have resolutely avoided membership. In the history of NATO, no two NATO member states have gone to war with each other, a remarkable period in European history. European wars of the past three decades have been on the borders of NATO between non-NATO members or civil wars within non-NATO countries. In Asia, the ASEAN (economic) pseudo-alliance system, with its de-facto assumed defensive alliance potential, has acted as a break on overt aggression by countries whose historical animosities could result in conflict at almost any time.  

Paradoxically, the invasion of Ukraine has increased the prospects for a longer peace in one part of Asia, the Korean Peninsula. Kim’s beating the drums of war is just that, beating of drums, and is for internal consumption only. That external parties, including the US and South Korea, are responding is predictable, but also all part of the game. But North Korea is not, for the next decade or more, a threat to South Korea or anyone else. They are or have shipped a publicly stated 1,000,000 artillery shells to Russia, depleting their own stocks to the point of severely limiting any offensive capability they may have had. That probably represents most of a decade’s production capacity for North Korea, or at a minimum, has diluted stockpiles to the point that sustained warfare with South Korea and the United States is not achievable, and Kim knows it.    

Middle East  

To be sure, some aspects of the global order are coming apart. Out of this “coming apart” will come a new set of global assumptions and alignments.  For example, the presumption of Israeli immunity from human rights scrutiny and sanction. We are in a transition period in which the questioning of Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank (and elsewhere) invites being labelled antisemitic. That will change, especially as those who do criticise Israeli policy and actions will do so, having prefaced their statements with a standard caveat that they are talking about the policies and actions of a secular government and not the actions of a religion.  

This will result in a realignment of relationships between the Middle East, Europe and Asia, though the relationship with the US will not fundamentally change. But the rule of the right-wing parties in Israel is coming to an end, and unrestricted exploitation and oppression of West Bank Palestinians will be curtailed in the coming years. This will not be driven by any Israeli awakening to the plight of the Palestinians but will come from a recognition that large-scale consumer-driven boycotts of Israeli goods and Israel as a tourist destination will not be balanced by any increases in foreign aid. Israeli strategic thinkers should probably consider the implications of an economy more isolated and with lower foreign investment and aid.  

Attacks on US forces in the Middle East are nothing new. Deaths of American forces is nothing new. But the idea that the US is too distracted to respond is already being disproven, and even before American retaliation, at least one Iranian proxy group publicly stated that they would not be attacking American forces any longer. They understand the potential cost.  

There are almost too many potential conflicts in the wider Middle East to enumerate, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey each holding overlapping antagonisms with each other and with internal factions and ethnic groups within each. Any of these could “blow up” into wars significant enough to drag in belligerents from outside the region.

Migration  

Migration will continue to be a common-values-stressing problem, and it will only grow over the coming decade. Arguments for open borders (in Europe) and closed borders (in America) will be met by the reality that a certain number of migrants will be needed in both continental masses simply to look after the ageing populations that do not have younger cohorts coming through to take over the responsibilities historically performed by the next generation.  

Yet managing the flow of migrants will be a challenge that to date has been failed by almost all. It is a challenge that will only grow in severity. There is no question that crises spur migration, whether natural disasters or civil conflict, or either one leading to the other. Nigeria, as one example among many potential examples, is projected to have its population grow from 200 million today to 400 million by 2050. That number of people in that environment is unsustainable. Should 1% decide to migrate, one out of one hundred people, that represents four million migrants. Where will they go? How will they get there? And even if those two are decided, will they be accepted or even allowed to reach their destination.  

In Bangladesh today, the Rohingya fleeing Myanmar are being attacked by those who do not want them to encroach on an already overburdened environment. How will Nigerians, or any others, fair in lands that are inhospitable by nature and unwelcoming by the current inhabitants?

Another danger, closer to Europe, I would posit, is Egypt, with 100 million people living along a single river (effectively). Should 2%, or two out of one hundred people, decide to migrate to Europe in a crisis, that is two million migrants, a volume that will overwhelm any attempts to contain it short of sinking the boats (an ugly but possible worst-case scenario).

The migration issue will transition to how to manage migration, both attracting the desirable and dissuading those on the desirable professions' lists (doctors, nurses, caregivers, IT professionals, skilled professionals, etc). That will require a twofold approach: draconian laws to repatriate illegal migrants coupled with far stronger messaging in the source countries and massively larger foreign aid and development programmes.  

Climate  

Overlay Climate Change onto this mix and the urgency of transition, and the level of interventions required to stabilise migrant-source countries will take on a greater urgency. Will Western developed powers be up to the challenge? Eventually, yes. As Churchill famously said about the US (and now applies to all developed nations), “They can be relied upon to do the right thing, after exhausting every alternative”.  

This is not to suggest that there will not be unexpected traumas and events. That most certainly will happen. And we will not be prepared, no matter how much planning takes place. But the inherent resiliency of global systems, and the excess capacity built-in (yes, there is plenty) will ensure that responses will take place and the greatest possible damage will be averted. That is at the macro level. At the local or regional level, we should expect some catastrophic events. Indeed, many are predictable.  

Too many parts of the world are in crisis and under remarkable stress. There are also areas which appear to be functioning but are stressing the underlying capacity of the environment to support the regional systems, cultures, economies, and food production capacity. Some of these are going to suffer catastrophic collapses in the coming decade.  

Yet, to be cold-blooded about this, the collapses will be “local” and not the entire world or “civilisation” impacting, though our humanity may be challenged. Population growth expectations for some countries are unsustainable in almost any imagined scenario, yet the demographics are "baked in". And some of these countries are in environmentally challenged situations already. The Sahel is one such area, and we are already seeing the strains caused by climate disruption coupled with civil war in a "'which came first” situation. It will only get worse. And it will drive local, regional, and extra-regional migration.  

Other parts of the world will (are already) be impacted by Climate Change. In Greece, the idea of summer has become synonymous with the idea of a “fire season". How much more will burn this year? And that problem is going to come home to much of the developed world. Terrible as it will be, it will not result in a societal or social collapse.  

Aquifer depletion  

Depletion of aquifers around the world creates localised threats should rain patterns change along with the climate. We should be clear that aquifers are being depleted because the agricultural and urban loads already far exceed the environmental carrying capacity of their locations. “A map of groundwater storage trends for Earth's 37 largest aquifers using GRACE data, showing depletion and replenishment in millimeters of water per year. Twenty-one aquifers have exceeded sustainability tipping points and are being depleted, and 13 of these are considered significantly distressed, threatening regional water security and resilience.” 

Disruptions or changes in rainfall patterns, even for a season, could create self-reinforcing cycles of localised environmental collapse and resulting social pressures, including forced migration of large populations from those no-longer-viable locations and regions.  

The specific areas of my own concern are the plains of northern India, whose aquifers have seen such exploitation that the drop in the ground level is measurable by satellite. Depletion of the sources of the Ganges coupled with groundwater depletion could have far-ranging negative impacts on crop production. Couple that with a Climate change-induced change in the timing and/or strength of the monsoons and one or more years of very bad harvests could put millions in danger.  

Optimism  

But there is so much that we should also consider on the positive side. Humanity is probably the ultimate adaptable species; in that we can develop and evolve technology and governance systems to see us through calamities. If anything, the very potential Malthusian risks to parts of the world today are the same problems that were deferred by the “green revolution” of the 1060s and 1970s. We postponed that crisis, but for how long?  

Climate Change will be mitigated, though we cannot say at what cost. Fossil fuel will be phased out over the coming decades and become a niche fuel source for non-transport needs. Solar, wind, and very soon SMR (Small Modular Reactor) technology will fill the electricity production space currently filled by coal, oil, and natural gas. Not completely, but by the middle of the century, the existing non-renewable power production facilities will be awaiting decommissioning.  

In the area of healthcare, the revolution is only beginning. AI and genomics are revolutionising medicine, and coupled with the concept of mass personalisation in manufacturing and marketing, it will not be long before personalised treatment and personalised preventive treatment become, in the developed world, the norm. The reduction in burden that this will have on healthcare systems will free resources to care for the great wave of active elderly (of which I hope to be one).  

The world is changing. Rapidly. But that does not mean it is falling apart, or that it will fall apart.  

I hope.  

A Deal With Kim

External events can swing markets both negatively and positively, and a deal with Kim will certainly be a positive market moving event.

This is one situation that could boost markets, and possibly hold off the eventual end of the bull market. I've attempted to look at factors or situations that could result in a collapse or sharp fall in US and Global equity prices, and lead to a recession or worse; this is one that could/will boost markets. 

The US and North Korea will "do a deal" on Nukes. That deal, like all deals with North Korea over nuclear ambitions, will be praised by those that sign them, lambasted by those not in power at the time of the deal (both in the US and across the Western allies), and will ultimately fail. There is simply too much for North Korea to lose, and not enough to gain, by cutting a deal that would be acceptable to the US.

In the next six months, expect a deal, and expect Trump to tell us what a great deal it is, and how only he could have made that deal, the best deal, the most historic deal. That Trump's talking tough was what brought Kim "Rocket Man" to the table, and that threat will make the deal work.

Being very clear however, Trump and more importantly Mattis, know that no meaningful deal is possible, and that the actual result will be a continued kicking of the can down the road. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and the actual strategy is to contain those Nukes in North Korea and to delay or avoid the further spread of nuclear weapons.

The deal will be hailed as a great victory for Trump. It will fail, but it will appease his base. It will also signal a reduction or removal of war-drums and associated tensions from the Korean peninsula for the next two to three years. That will be good news.

Quick History

Korea has existed as a divided peninsula for the past 65 years, following the cease-fire at the end of the Korean War in 1953. That cease-fire allowed for the entrenching of the Kim dynasty in the North, and a western proxy state in the south. It also created a base from which the United States could continue to exercise influence in the region, beyond Japan and the chain of islands off the Chinese coast. The "victory" of the West also demonstrated that there was a line, albeit not enforced with nuclear weapons, across which China could no longer expand.

Through the decades, North Korea has remained a Chinese client-state, balanced against the Western client-state in the south.

While in the North oppression was the rule, and questioning the Kims was a death sentence, in the South, eventually, democratic institutions and economic success created a wealthy and free society, with a Korean identity, to challenge the dynastic system in the North.

Korea is a society in which ancestor worship is core, and age-based seniority exists throughout society, North and South. In the South, that is reflected in daily life as children enter school, University and eventually the workplace, with each year ahead of them exercising a level of age-based power. In the North, this ancestor worship was used to venerate the elder Kim, and on his death, to anoint the son, and now the grandson. Challenge the Kim, and you challenge the ancestors, who you also worship.

The war, and reunification of the Korean peninsula remained unresolved for decades, and remains unresolved. Both side talk about reunification, but only on their terms. The South will never become a communist country, and the North will never give up the ancestor worship of the Kims, at least not without a fight.

Sitting on the side-lines are the US and China. While China may be the guarantor of North Korean independence, it comes at a price - North Korea must appear to play the game, and must not start a war of reunification. To do so risks a situation that might result in the US and China being at war with each other. China is not ready for that, or for the risk of such a conflict. Likewise, the South is willing to let the North eventually collapse, and to be ready to re-unify under conditions in which they act as the big brother bringing the North back into the Korean family.

Sitting outside is the US, the manufactured threat to the Kims and North Korea. Real or imagined, that threat, or the manufacturing of that threat, ensures internal cohesion and support for the Kims, and worship of the Kim dynasty.

So the North must bluster. And in their eyes, they must be ready to take on the US in Korea, in a fight that they know they cannot win in a drawn-out conventional war, assuming that the US (and its Southern proxy) are willing to suffer as much pain as the North is able to inflict and to absorb in defending the Kim dynasty.

The “Great Assumption”

Here the need for Nukes; the "Great Assumption".

When looking around the world, North Korea (and others) cannot help but notice that countries with Nukes do not get overthrown or invaded by the United States. The Soviet Union survived for decades after World War II, even though they were weaker and still recovering from that war. Yet the United States avoided war with them.

Iraq sought Nukes, and they were invaded first in 1991 (Desert Storm and the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait), and then invaded and their governing party and system overthrown in 2003.

Yet next door, Iran is able to thumb its nose at the US, is able to support uprisings in Iraq and support the government in Syria, without realistic threat of invasion or attack from the US. The difference? Nukes. The US was not able to stop the acquisition of enough enriched uranium and associated technology to ensure that Iran does not have the bomb, and this ambiguity has inoculated Iran from American regime change.

As far back as 2013 Israel was suggesting that Iran already had nuclear weapons. “It’s too late for Israel [to prevent an Iranian bomb]. Iran has crossed all the borders and all the constraints, and it has a first nuclear bomb in its possession, and maybe more than that,” Yerushalmi writes, basing himself on what he says is the assessment he heard this week from state security sources. “We are facing a historic change in the strategic balance of forces in the region.”

Likewise Pakistan, a country that has funded terrorism, gave refuge (not officially we are told) to Osama Bin Laden, Taliban leadership and a host of others, and served as a base for terrorist attacks in India including the Mumbia attacks. Pakistan should be in the cross-hairs for regime change, yet as a country continues to receive billions of dollars in "aid" each year. Pakistan has the bomb, and therefore is untouchable, even though it has unofficially sold of allowed the sale of nuclear capability.

Syria, working under the same Great Assumption, had a program to develop a bomb or capability. That was bombed by the Israelis in 2007, flew fighter-bombers over Lebanon and destroyed the Syrian reactor before it could become operational. There is nothing quite like a cute name for a bombing mission. Something like "Outside the box". 

Fast forward to 2011 and the Arab Spring, and soon Syria was in the cross-hairs of Western leaders and calls for regime change and the removal of Assad. Years later Syria is a destroyed country, one that formerly was a shining start of secular economic moderation. Certainly a multi-year drought in the Middle East has not helped, but external support has funded the destruction of that country.

Even Libya was rumoured to have nuclear ambitions, and publically disavowed those in 2003. While there is no direct linkage to the Arab Spring and Western involvement in the overthrow of Gaddafi, the lack of a viable nuclear program certainly cleared the way for aggressive support for rebels.

And so the Great Assumption - if you have a nuclear bomb, you are safe from attack by the West, at least any attack that is designed to overthrow your government.

The Need for a Deal

The deal will happen, because all the key players need a deal, if for no other reason than to allow all to get back to what they were doing before the flair-up. The five countries directly involved each have reasons to want a deal, but those reasons are not the same as needing a deal that actually results in the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

All parties know that nukes are now a part of the Korean political and national landscape. The only remaining question is what the US will offer to South Korea to stop them from developing their own atomic weapons, if they have not already done so.

South Korea:

Certainly South Korea wants a nuclear free Korean peninsula, but it is not going to get it, and it knows that. The next best thing will be an agreement that defacto limits the number of Nukes in the North to a relative handful, and that buys the South enough time to develop and produce their own nukes and refine their knowledge of exactly where and how to hit the North if it comes to that.

South Korea wants closer ties with the North, and economic ties. Not for reunification, as that will actually, following the West German / East German reunification, be a tremendous cost to the South Korean economy for a decade or more. Over twenty years, German reunification cost approximately €1.3 trillion (or almost $2 trillion). 

South Korea wants quiet, and peace, and trade. All of those are threatened by the current noise.

Japan:

Like South Korea, Japan wants quiet, and no missiles landing in their waters, or flying over their islands. They would love to see a nuclear-free peninsula, but they know that will not happen, at least not without a war, and they most especially do not want a war with nukes involved. They want a deal that brings quiet.

China:

The last thing China wants is a reunified Korea, under either the North or the South. Therefore China needs a deal that ensures a "protected" North and constrained. China would be very happy to see the North dismantle its program, and decommission the bombs.

While China would like to see, and build, a sphere of influence in Asia that is not threatened by the US or American allies, it also knows that economic power is what will grow China and create an intergenerational strong China. Control of resources and economic power can be soft, and China will build a soft empire; is already building a hard empire in the South China Sea.

The inner ring of islands, Taiwan, Japan, and in a logical sense, Korea, will not be going away. Certainly there remains the intention of reunification of Taiwan into a single China ruled from the Communist Party, and this may one day become a reality, preferably by negotiation. But that ring of islands will not go away, so the best option is to exercise leverage over each.

In the Koreas this means ensuring no reunification in the foreseeable future, but also no war, especially no atomic war so close to home.

China will support a deal, even if it only pushes the problem into the future.

USA:

Trump and the US need a deal to save face. The US cannot go to war with North Korea, therefore a deal, almost any deal, is needed to avoid further erosion of its position in Asia, and with that a continued shifting of authority to Beijing. Without a deal, at home the Trump administration will appear weak on foreign policy and unable, with all the bombs and ships, to bring a tiny adversary to heel.

North Korea is, without the cast, music or comedy, the Mouse that Roared, and unless the US can do a deal, the world will perceive that the US lost. And losing is not something that Super Powers do, as this undermines their position as protectors of their surrogates, and leaves openings for alternative powers to displace them.

At risk for the US is not just South Korea or Japan. Without a US willing to stand up to North Korea, let alone China, Taiwan will look for a deal with Beijing leading to the closure of any US bases and the reunification of Taiwan into China. The Philippines already is experimenting with just how far it can move toward China.

This will continue around Asia.

The US needs a deal, and Trump needs a deal; more than North Korea needs a deal.

North Korea:

But North Korea does need a deal, just not as badly as the US. Economic sanctions can be suffered through, and the Chinese and Russians certainly will cheat when the US is not looking too closely. People will starve, but that is an acceptable price to pay to keep the Kims in power and preserve worship of the Kim dynasty.

But North Korea does need to trade, especially with China, and that will lead to a deal. China's influence should not be either over- or under-estimated. And China needs North Korea to do a deal.

So North Korea is reaching out to make a deal. After all, they have inoculated themselves against regime change by the US, and therefore it is now time to reap some of the benefits of that investment, through more open trade to avert famine and economic collapse at home.

The stage is set.

What would a Deal look like?

We should expect extended talks, interrupted by Tweet-storms suggesting failure then success (repeat) and an eventual "deal". The entire purpose will be to buy enough time to make it appear that everyone is getting something.

• North Korea will agree to international inspectors.
• The US will reduce sanctions once inspections have begun.
• International trade with North Korea will recommence.
• North Korea will promise to dismantle its existing nuclear weapons and program.

We do not know what the behind the scenes agreements will be, the secret concessions that the US will make; the sweeteners for South Korea, the promises to Japan and China, or the "we'll pretend not to look too closely for the next few years" promise that the US will make to Kim, as long as he is not lobbing missiles over Japan, or anywhere else for that matter.

How it will be sold

China, Japan and South Korea will look at any deal for what it is, a ploy by two dictators to attempt to look like they won, and the other guy capitulated. No one in those three countries will gain any comfort from the deal, other than the comfort of knowing that things will go back to being quiet again, so they can get on with their lives and businesses.

In the US, Trump may even hold his victory parade, complete with marching soldiers, tanks and jet fighters. He will not, I desperately hope, get off Air Force One and hold up his "Peace in Our Times" meaningless piece of paper, though he probably will sign a proclamation of victory in the White House. 

North Korea of course will hold a victory parade, and the people will be told that the US has been defeated. The Kims have brought peace to the peninsula, and reunification will happen, eventually, once South Korea understands the might of the North, and that they have been abandoned by the US. This will be sold as, and will be, a great victory over the forces of the West that have worked for decades to destroy the Korean people; They failed.

Kim's Peace in Our Time will be real, as he has proved the Great Assumption correct, and all he will now need to do is to carry on with the same game that North Korea has played for decades; agree and cheat.

Because in the end, all that the US wants is for the appearance of victory, while everything North Korea wants is victory and protection of the state that the Kims created.