Chapter 105 Chapter 19 Towards a New Millennium 1

1 The short twentieth century is about to end amidst many problems.No one has a solution, and no one even dares to say he has an answer.As a result, human beings at the end of the century had no choice but to grope forward in a fog that permeated the whole world, and stumbled into the beginning of the third millennium with hazy footsteps.We can only be sure of one thing, and that is that a page of history has come to an end.Beyond that, little is known. For the first time in two hundred years, the world of the 1990s was a world devoid of any international system or structure. Since 1989, there have been many emerging territorial states, but there is no independent international mechanism to determine their boundaries—even without a detached position that can be used as a third party to mediate—this is enough to prove the inadequacy of the international structure.Where have all the superpowers who have come forward to "resolve problems" in the past to determine the undetermined boundaries, or at least recognize the undetermined boundaries?After the First World War, under their supervision, the map of Europe and the world was redrawn, a national border was drawn here, and a "referendum" was insisted on there. Where did these former victors go (seriously) Yes, the international work conferences that were regarded as commonplace in the diplomatic arena in the past are so practical and effective. It’s not like today’s summits, which are just for public relations, take a few photos, and then hurry up.)?How come it disappeared?

The millennium is approaching, really, where are the old and new international powers?The only country that can still leave a supportive scene and be treated with the definition of a superpower in 1914 is the United States.In reality, however, the situation is ambiguous.Russia has been shaken and shrunk greatly, returning to the size of the mid-seventeenth century. It has not been so small since Peter the Great.And Britain and France have also plummeted, downgraded to regional powers, even if they have nuclear force in their hands, they can't hide their desperation.As for Germany and Japan, they are indeed two economic "powers", but neither country feels the need to strengthen its military force to help its economic momentum as in the past - even if no one cares about them now, they can act freely - but the world is unpredictable , their future intentions, no one can guarantee.As for the newly established European Union, although it is determined to use its economic cooperation as an example to further seek political synchronization, in fact it cannot even pretend.To be honest, except for a very small number of old and new countries in the world today, by the end of the first 25 years of the 21st century, I am afraid that not many will continue to exist in their current state.

If the identities of the performers on the international stage are unknown, so are the various crises facing the world.In the short period of the twentieth century, there were constant wars; world-class wars, no matter cold or hot, were launched by superpowers and their allies, and each crisis escalated day by day, and there would be a final encounter with nuclear weapons, and the world would not stop until it destroyed posture.Fortunately, the tragedy can be avoided, and this danger is obviously gone.What the future holds is still unknown.However, the protagonists in the world theater are now either stepping down quietly or retiring to the foil, which means that a third world war in the old form is extremely unlikely to happen.

However, the end of the old war does not mean that there will be no more wars in the world. In the 1980s, as evidenced by the British-Aflkland War in 1983 and the Iran-Iraq War in 1980-1988, there will always be wars in the world that have nothing to do with the international confrontation between superpowers. After 1989, military operations in Europe, Asia, and Africa continued frequently, and the number was uncountable, although not all of them were officially listed as wars—in Libya, Angola, Sudan, Cape Horn in Africa, in the former Yugoslavia, Moldova, and the Caucasus Mountains With several countries in the Transcaucasus region, in the always ready to explode in the Middle East, and in the former Soviet Union's Central Asia and Afghanistan.In this ups and downs, as one country after another collapses and disintegrates, it is often unclear exactly who is fighting and why.Therefore, for a while, these military actions were difficult to define, and they were extremely inconsistent with the traditional definition of "war". They were neither international wars nor domestic civil wars.However, the people of the Li people are in the middle, how can there be peace in the flames of war?Of course, it is impossible to feel that the world is peaceful.Places like Bosnia, Tajikistan, and Liberia were living in peace not long ago, but now they are naturally feeling the pain of chaos.In addition, the turmoil in the Balkans in the 1990s further proved that there is no clear boundary between regional fratricidal killings and more recognizable old-style wars, and it can become the latter at any time.Simply put, the threat of a global war has not disappeared, only the nature of warfare has changed.

As for those countries that are stronger, more stable, and more cared for by God, such as the European Union, they have a judgment with the neighboring areas; Across the Baltic, the fate of the former Soviet Union was different—seeing the turmoil and brutal slaughter of the hapless Third World, they might have thought they were exempt, but they were wrong.Disputes among traditional nation-states are enough to make them angry.The key point is not that they will disintegrate and separate, but that the new ethos in the second half of this century is that the power of destruction has entered the people or fallen into the hands of individuals, so that violence and destruction can be seen everywhere. can be spared.Insensibly, these states have been weakened, or at least deprived of their ability to operate effectively on their own, which is the main evidence of a state's power in all demarcated areas of the world.

Even today, a small group of political disaffected groups, or any other dissident organization, can wreak havoc anywhere, anytime, as in the actions of the Irish Republican Army on British soil, or in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York by terrorists (1993 ).However, by the end of the short twentieth century, the losses caused by these sabotage activities, except for the high cost of insurance companies, were generally considered modest.Because contrary to common beliefs, in fact, such sporadic individual actions, in terms of targets and scope of killing, are far inferior to formal wars launched by the state, and the latter indiscriminately harm innocent people.Perhaps it is precisely because the purpose of the former (if there is one) is political rather than military.In addition, in addition to the use of explosives, such terrorist actions mostly use weapons operated by one person, which are more suitable for small-scale killings rather than heavy artillery fire for massacres.However, one day, it is not impossible to design nuclear weapons as small-group weapons. It can be inferred from the fact that the materials and knowledge for making nuclear weapons are readily available and are already flying all over the world market.

What's more, the popularization and civilianization of destructive power have increased the cost of public security.Because of this, in the face of the official opening of fire between Catholics and Protestant militias in Northern Ireland, although the number of the two sides was only a few hundred, the British government had to come to the scene and dispatch about 20,000 troops and 8,000 armed police , long-term stationing, the annual cost is as high as 3 billion pounds.However, small-scale riots within the border are naturally more troublesome if they occur abroad.Even fairly wealthy countries, confronted with such international annoyances, have to consider whether they can afford such unlimited expenses.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, several incidents have highlighted the diminishing power of states, Bosnia and Somalia being two of the most obvious examples.This situation further points out that in the new millennium, the most likely source of conflict is the huge gap between rich and poor areas that is growing rapidly.Poor and rich, rich and poor, hate each other.Therefore, the rise of Islamic fundamentalists is obviously not just to resist the consciousness of "modernization is Westernization", but also to go further, to oppose "the West" itself.Members of such movements therefore set out to harm Western travelers for their goals (as in Egypt) or mass murder local Western residents (as in Algeria).On the contrary, xenophobic thoughts are prevalent in the rich countries of the West, and the most intense point is directed at outsiders from the third world. The EU countries have built high embankments to block the torrent of poor people from the third world who come to work.Even in the United States, the de facto unrestricted immigration was beginning to meet serious opposition.

Politically and militarily, however, each side is far beyond the reach of the other.Although in any conceivable open confrontation between the North and the South, the northern countries, relying on their technological advantages and wealth, are often bound to win, as the 1991 Persian Gulf War is an ironclad proof.Certain Third World countries, even with nuclear missiles—assuming the ability to maintain and launch them—could not be effective intimidation.Because Western countries, such as Israel and the allied forces in the Gulf War, have the intention and ability to pre-emptively strike and mobilize large forces to destroy weaker opponents before the latter poses a real threat.From a military point of view, the First World could indeed regard the Third World as what Mao Zedong called a "paper tiger."

However, during the brief second half of the twentieth century it became increasingly clear that, while the First World could beat the Third World in battle, it could not win wars.Or to put it another way, winning a war—even if it could—does not really guarantee a military occupation.The greatest asset of imperialism in the early days was that once a colony was occupied by the colonists, they were often willing to bow their heads, obey orders, and let a small number of occupants rule, but this situation no longer exists.So back in the days of the Habsburgs, Bosnia-Herzegovina could have been brought under imperial rule; but by the early 1990s, when it came to appeasement of the unfortunate war-torn country, all the government's military advisers were arguing that It is impossible for hundreds of thousands of troops to be stationed.In other words, it is equal to the force required to mobilize a major war.The colony of Somaliland (Somaliland) has always been difficult to manage. At one point, the British army was dispatched, led by a major general.However, during the entire colonial period, the authorities in London and Rome never had the idea that this place would cause trouble for the British and Italian colonial governments, and even the famous "Mad Mullah" Muhammad ben Abdallah (Muhammad ben Abdallah), known as the Islamic cleric, is also not under their eyes.However, in the early 1990s, the hundreds of thousands of occupation troops of the United States and the United Nations, once faced with the choice of long-term occupation with unknown purpose and uncertain time, immediately retreated in disgrace.Even the boundless power of the great United States had to shy away from the incident in neighboring Haiti.Haiti, which was traditionally a satellite vassal of the Washington authorities, under the command of a local general, led troops equipped and trained by the United States, resolutely refused the return of a democratically elected president supported by the United States (reluctantly), and challenged the United States to come to attack .But the United States flatly refused, just as it had decided between 1915 and 1934.It is not because the Haitian army with only more than 1,000 people is difficult to deal with, but because the United States simply does not know how to use external force to quell the Haitian problem.

Simply put, the century ended in chaos in the global order.The nature of this chaotic phenomenon is not clear, there is no way to control it, and it is even more distant to stop.