The Coming Anarchy by Robert Kaplan: A Critique
Abstract
After the fall of the Soviet Union, several scholars attempted to provide a new paradigm for understanding international relations. Francis Fukuyama argued that after the decline of communism, humankind had reached an endpoint in ideological evolution, what he called the End of History. His thesis was challenged by his teacher, Mr. Samuel P. Huntington, who asserted that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by the clash of civilizations.
However, there was another intellectual, Robert D. Kaplan, who challenged Francis Fukuyama with a different explanation of the future. He maintained that rather than peaceful coexistence under a liberal democratic framework, the world is now moving towards Anarchy. Based on his experience of witnessing disintegrating social and political conditions in West African states, he asserted that the post-Cold War would resemble the post-colonial African states witnessing lawlessness, tyranny, environmental degradations, etc.
This article summarizes his views expressed in a series of 9 articles published between 1994 and 1998.
Introduction
The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s produced a wave of optimism throughout the world, prompting intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama to declare that History had ended. They believed that after the triumph of capitalism over its arch-rival communism, the worldwide growth of parliamentary democracy, a capitalistic economy, and free trade would ensure peace and prosperity for all. To them, western democratic capitalism had proven itself to be the best socioeconomic and political framework for human societies to organize themselves.
However, in this euphoria, two intellectuals came forward who challenged Francis Fukuyama with a different explanation of the future: Huntington and Robert D Kaplan. Huntington believed that History had not ended but rather taken a new turn towards the Clash of Civilisations in which groups of countries sharing similar cultural heritage would be fighting against other groups not sharing their cultural heritage.
Another notable was Robert D. Kaplan, also a disbeliever of the End of History thesis. He maintained that rather than peaceful coexistence under a liberal democratic framework, the world is now moving towards Anarchy. To prove his point, he wrote nine essays in magazines between 1994 and 1998. The first and longest essay, titled The Coming Anarchy, was published in The Atlantic Monthly and attracted considerable comment.
Main Points
Robert Kaplan, drawing on his firsthand experiences of the disintegration of social and political conditions in several West African states, paints a stark picture of the complexities faced by these nations after the departure of colonial powers. According to him, there were three key issues plaguing these countries and their potential impact on the global stage.
- Unraveling Governance: One of the central observations made by Kaplan pertains to the governance vacuum left by the British colonial era. He argues that post-colonial African states failed to manage themselves effectively, leading to a rise in tyranny, lawlessness, and crime. Tyranny, once uncommon, has become an unfortunate norm, eroding the rule of law, and fostering an environment where vigilantes take justice into their own hands. This has resulted in a surge in crime rates, with the absence of state authority leaving a void that criminal elements readily exploit.
- Erosion of Social Fabric: Kaplan delves into the erosion of traditional family support systems, which were once the bedrock of these societies. As these systems break down, young men often find themselves adrift, joining migrant groups and gradually sliding into criminal activities as legitimate avenues for success diminish. Additionally, he highlights the impact of belief in black magic, which perpetuates cycles of vengeance among individuals and groups. Such internal divisions further weaken the social fabric, hindering prospects for stability and progress.
- Environmental Degradation and Population Pressures: Environmental degradation emerges as a critical factor contributing to instability in West African states. Desertification and deforestation, exacerbated by overpopulation, have driven rural peasants away from their ancestral lands. This displacement accelerates the destruction of primary rainforests and secondary forests at an alarming pace. The resulting soil erosion intensifies flooding and, coupled with stagnant water bodies, provides fertile breeding grounds for mosquitoes, spreading diseases such as malaria.
In his prescient analysis, Kaplan issues a cautionary note that the West African context serves as a prelude to confronting uncomfortable issues that loom on the horizon of our global civilization. He envisions this as a compass pointing towards the future of our planet, outlining four distinct dimensions through which the trajectory of the world can be discerned: environmental scarcity, cultural and racial tensions, geographic evolution, and the metamorphosis of conflict.
- Environmental Scarcity: Kaplan asserts that the foremost security predicament will be environmental scarcity. As populations burgeon and diseases proliferate, the depletion of resources coupled with deforestation, soil erosion, water scarcity, air pollution, and even the spectre of rising sea levels will set the stage for massive migrations and ignite societal strife. The scarcity-driven conflicts will test the resilience of nations, unravelling existing social orders.
- Cultural and Racial Clash: Against the backdrop of mounting environmental pressures, Kaplan foresees a paradoxical dichotomy. While a minority in technologically advanced regions may continue to bask in the security of controlled environments, the majority will plunge into a survival struggle. With a nod to Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” Kaplan envisions that environmental crises will fuel cultural and racial clashes, supplanting traditional conflicts rooted in nation-states and ideologies. Emerging confrontations will stem from diverse cultural factions—Hindu, Muslim, Slavic Orthodox, Western, Japanese, Confucian, and Latin American—fostering a new landscape of contention.
- The Erosion of Nation-State Dominance: Kaplan prognosticates that the next century will witness the gradual decline of the nation-state as a definitive marker of political or social coherence. The very map of the world, fashioned by European colonialism, must adapt to new realities. Colonial borders, which still nominally endure in Arab and African regions, diverge from the intricate tapestry of political and cultural dynamics, challenging neat delineations and prompting a reevaluation of geopolitical constructs.
- Transformation of War: With an overwhelming majority of global population growth projected in impoverished regions, Kaplan’s attention turns to conflict. He surmises that the question will no longer revolve around the possibility of war, but rather the nature of conflict. The catalyst will often be environmental scarcity, precipitating wars centered around communal survival. These conflicts will adopt a subnational character, rendering traditional avenues of protection by states and local governments increasingly ineffective.
In essence, Kaplan’s profound insights provide a lens through which we can glimpse the contours of our shared future. The West African crucible serves as both a harbinger and a mirror, reflecting a world grappling with environmental strains, cultural upheavals, evolving geography, and novel forms of conflict. By heeding these observations, we can foster a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges that lie ahead and work collectively to chart a course towards a more resilient and harmonious global society.
Critique of the Coming Anarchy
Robert Kaplan’s Coming Anarchy got widespread publicity because of its lucidity of narration, the amount of anecdotal evidence, and the wealth of data he presented in support of his prediction that the world was moving towards a state “in which criminal anarchy emerges due to the scarcity of resources.” The Environmentalists welcomed it with open arms, for obvious reasons. To be fair to him, he accurately described the socioeconomic and political conditions prevailing in most of the West African states in the 1990s and rightly concluded that the future was bleak for these states.
However, in his enthusiasm to present a grand theory, he erred the same way Huntington did in his Clash of Civilisation thesis. Both generalized a long-term global outcome based on narrow anecdotal evidence with the help of selected facts and figures. Both took linear projections of history and maintained that history could move forward only in one direction-the one they had prophesied. The sceptics pointed out its shortcomings—the sweeping generalizations he made as well as its dire and definitive tone, particularly his assertion that the world would follow a similarly demonic path that West Africa had been following. Fortunately, history determines its course; his predictions failed with time.
While in 1994, many countries displayed signs of serious decline, those states today comprise some of the strongest emerging economic and political powers. Brazil today is arguably Latin America’s economic and political superpower. In Asia, India and China remain the two largest rising global powers. And in West Africa, Nigeria, although fraught with political trouble, remains the West African petroleum powerhouse. Consequently, in 2011, Kaplan revised his predictions, suggesting that the future of conflict rests in the South China Sea.
When he argues that the environment is the preeminent security threat because of the population’s increase, leading to competing demands on scarce resources, he is dead on the spot. But, then, in his exuberance to validate his thesis, Kaplan underestimates man’s ability to respond to natural or man-made challenges through inventions and innovations. In this respect, he was committing the same mistakes as were committed by Thomas Malthus two hundred years ago or the authors of The Limits to Growth in the 1970s-failure to appreciate man’s ingenuity to cope with shortages through invention and innovation
He fails to appreciate that scarcity in the past created such innovations as the Green Revolution of the 1950s and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the 1990s. GMO technology has been so successful in increasing the productivity of crops that, in many cases, outputs now far exceed demands. Modern advances such as robots, artificial intelligence, renewable energy, etc. are testimony to humankind’s ingenuity to cope with stress and shortages.
Similarly, his diagnosis also fails to appreciate the human ingenuity to cope with disasters through mutual help and the self-correction capability of the international system. One may agree with his contention that there is ruthless competition among the nation-states for acquiring the maximum share of scarce resources, but it is also true that these very nation-states also cooperate when faced with a common danger. For example, there may be differences in the approach toward climate change but there is unanimity among the states about its inevitability and the necessity to take preventive and mitigation actions
Related to the above is global cooperation on technological advancements for the common good. Universities and research institutes funded by their respective governments all over the world cooperate in joint research and development-information technology is an obvious example. That’s why, almost every year, Noble Prizes are jointly shared by scientists working in different countries. Thomas Friedman characterizes this global cooperation on technological advancements as “the democratization of technology.” In his view, technology literally and figuratively breaks down walls, fostering the integration of ideas and enabling states, corporations, and individuals to seek new opportunities.
Kenneth Waltz has rightly pointed out that “as nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power. “In effect, a global system of criminal anarchy is a system of political vacuum. Realist theory does not accept a system of total disorder. Instead, realism proposes a system that self-corrects in favour of strength. Kaplan holds on to notions of strength, but only insomuch as they pertain to individuals’ instincts for survival. The United States' survival demonstrates similar instincts that Kaplan fails to address.
Conclusion
What these cases indicate is that Kaplan’s assessment was shortsighted. He miscalculated general global impacts based on a few subjective experiences in Sierra Leone. These problems with Kaplan’s theory offer instruction for practitioners of international policy. International theory and the policies derived from it should be carefully considered. The world is too broad to apply single, narrowly based viewpoints to policy decisions. Practitioners should instead consider more holistically the adaptable nature of man to overcome future challenges.
From my book “International Relations: Basic Concepts & Global Issues” published by Amazon and available at
