Arquivo da tag: Guerra civil

Opinion | Why We Are Not Facing the Prospect of a Second Civil War (New York Times)

nytimes.com


Jamelle Bouie

Feb. 15, 2022

At the Georgia State Capitol, demonstrating against the inauguration of President Biden on Jan. 20, 2021.
Credit: Joshua Rashaad McFadden for The New York Times

It has not been uncommon, in recent years, to hear Americans worry about the advent of a new civil war.

Is Civil War Ahead?” The New Yorker asked last month. “Is America heading to civil war or secession?” CNN wondered on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Last week, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois told “The View” that “we have to recognize” the possibility of a civil war. “I don’t think it’s too far of a bridge to think that’s a possibility,” he said.

This isn’t just the media or the political class; it’s public opinion too. In a 2019 survey for the Georgetown Institute of Politics, the average respondent said that the United States was two-thirds of the way toward the “edge of a civil war.” In a recent poll conducted by the Institute of Politics at Harvard, 35 percent of voting-age Americans under 30 placed the odds of a second civil war at 50 percent or higher.

And in a result that says something about the divisions at hand, 52 percent of Trump voters and 41 percent of Biden voters said that they at least “somewhat agree” that it’s time to split the country, with either red or blue states leaving the union and forming their own country, according to a survey conducted by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia (where I am a visiting scholar).

Several related forces are fueling this anxiety, from deepening partisan polarization and our winner-take-all politics to our sharp division across lines of identity, culture and geography. There is the fact that this country is saturated with guns, as well as the reality that many Americans fear demographic change to the point that they’re willing to do pretty much anything to stop it. There is also the issue of Donald Trump, his strongest supporters and their effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Americans feel farther apart than at any point in recent memory, and as a result, many Americans fear the prospect of organized political violence well beyond what we saw on Jan. 6, 2021.

There is, however, a serious problem with this narrative: The Civil War we fought in the 19th century was not sparked by division qua division.

White Americans had been divided over slavery for 50 years before the crisis that led to war in 1861. The Missouri crisis of 1820, the nullification crisis of 1832, the conflict over the 1846 war with Mexico and the Compromise of 1850 all reflect the degree to which American politics rested on a sectional divide over the future of the slave system.

What made the 1850s different was the extent to which that division threatened the political economy of slavery. At the start of the decade, the historian Matthew Karp writes in “This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy,” “slaveholding power and slaveholding confidence seemed at their zenith,” the result of “spiking global demand for cotton” and the “dependence of the entire industrial world on a commodity that only American slaves could produce with profit.”

But with power came backlash. “Over the course of the decade,” Karp notes, “slavery was prohibited in the Pacific states, came under attack in Kansas and appeared unable to attach itself to any of the great open spaces of the new Southwest.” The growth of an avowedly antislavery public in the North wasn’t just a challenge to the political influence of the slaveholding South; it also threatened to undermine the slave economy itself and thus the economic basis for Southern power.

Plantation agriculture rapidly exhausted the soil. The sectional balance of Congress aside, planters needed new land to grow the cotton that secured their influence on the national (and international) stage. As Karp explains, “Slaveholders in the 1850s seldom passed up an opportunity to sketch the inexorable syllogism of King Cotton: The American South produced nearly all the world’s usable raw cotton; this cotton fueled the industrial development of the North Atlantic; therefore, the advanced economies of France, the northern United States and Great Britain were ruled, in effect, by Southern planters.” The backlash to slavery — the effort to restrain its growth and contain its spread — was an existential threat to the Southern elite.

It was the realization of that threat with the election of Abraham Lincoln — whose Republican Party was founded to stop the spread of slavery and who inherited a federal state with the power to do so — that pushed Southern elites to gamble their future on secession. They would leave the union and attempt to forge a slave empire on their own.

The point of this compact history, with regard to the present, is that it is irresponsible to talk about civil war as a function of polarization or division or rival ideologies. If those things matter, and they do, it is in how they both reflect and shape the objective interests of the people and factions in dispute.

Which is to say that if you’re worried about a second Civil War, the question to ask isn’t whether people hate each other — they always have, and we tend to grossly exaggerate the extent of this country’s political and cultural unity over time — but whether that hate results from the irreconcilable social and economic interests of opposing groups within the society. If it must be one way or the other, then you might have a conflict on your hands.

That’s where America was with slavery. That’s why our actual Civil War has been called the impending crisis. I’m not sure there’s anything in American society right now that plays the same role that the conflict over slavery did. Whatever our current challenges, whatever our current divisions, I do not think the United States is where it was in 1860. We have enough problems ahead of us already without having to worry about war breaking out here.

Conflitos pela água surgem no horizonte (IPS)

Inter Press Service – Reportagens

31/8/2012 – 10h21

por Thalif Deen, da IPS

conflitos Conflitos pela água surgem no horizonte

Participantes das atividades da Semana Mundial da Água, em Estocolmo. Foto: Peter Tvärberg, SIWI/CC by 2.0

Estocolmo, Suécia, 31/8/2012 – Diante da provável escassez de água nas próximas décadas, a comunidade de inteligência dos Estados Unidos já previu um cenário futuro cinza: conflitos étnicos, tensões regionais, instabilidade política e inclusive matanças. Nos próximos dez anos, “muitos países importantes para os Estados Unidos seguramente experimentarão problemas relacionados à água, como escassez, má qualidade ou inundações, que alimentarão riscos de instabilidade e de fracassos no funcionamento dos Estados, aumentando as tensões regionais”, alerta a Avaliação Nacional de Inteligência, publicada em março.

Em julho, o presidente do Conselho Nacional de Inteligência dos Estados Unidos, Chris Kojm, previu que até 2030 cerca de metade da população mundial (atualmente mais de sete bilhões de pessoas) viverá em áreas com severos problemas de água, elevando a probabilidade de assassinatos em massa. No entanto, o jornal The New York Timescitou Timothy Snyder, professor de história na Universidade de Yale, afirmando em um simpósio que “o pânico ecológico levará a matanças nas próximas décadas”.

Por sua vez, o diretor do Centro da Água da Universidade de Columbia, Upmanu Lall, foi mais cauteloso. “Não estou certo de que seja possível prever assassinatos em massa como resultado” da falta de água, disse à IPS. Lall afirmou que não prevê guerras ou conflitos internacionais por recursos hídricos. “Contudo, creio que a competição dentro de alguns dos maiores países, como a Índia, poderia levar a uma luta interna e ao aumento do terrorismo e dos conflitos sectários”, opinou. Porém, “evitar este futuro é possível se trabalharmos nele hoje”, ressaltou.

Este é um dos temas analisados na conferência internacional realizada em Estocolmo por ocasião da Semana Mundial da Água, que termina hoje. Lall considera realista a projeção de que, se tudo continuar igual, quase metade da população mundial viverá em “forte tensão pela água” até 2030. “É um desafio urgente, especialmente se considerarmos a possibilidade de grandes secas, por exemplo, as deste ano nos Estados Unidos e na Índia”, afirmou.

Os impactos serão muito graves e duradouros, alertou Lall. Porém, “se pudermos traduzir esta preocupação em ação, especialmente sobre com melhorar o uso da água na agricultura, de longe o setor consumidor mais ineficiente, então poderemos evitar este desastre”, aponto o especialista. No momento, há conversações nessa direção, mas não existem mandatos nem metas internacionais. Lall acrescentou que “é importante que isto seja assumido nos mais altos níveis para evitar uma considerável angústia na população e nas economias do mundo”.

Gary White, chefe-executivo e cofundador da organização Water.Org, acredita que o acesso aos recursos hídricos poderia ser motivo de conflitos nos próximos anos. “Particularmente em áreas pressionadas pela falta de água e nas quais há grandes concentrações de população pobre”, disse à IPS. “Entretanto, também acredito que a maioria dos governos que virão atuarão e adotarão políticas, regulações e acordos transitórios corretos e necessários para impedir grandes conflitos”, ressaltou.

White alertou que podem ocorrer casos de escassez aguda que teriam como consequência grandes perdas humanas e econômicas, mas acrescentou acreditar que “um conflito declarado seria algo excepcional”. Em geral, as crises regionais da água são geradas de forma relativamente lenta em comparação com a maioria dos desastres naturais, e, portanto, pode-se aprender lições para evitar impactos semelhantes em outros lugares, acrescentou.

“No entanto, essas crises e esses conflitos terão um impacto muito maior nos pobres, porque as populações mais abastadas sempre têm opções de utilizar tecnologia para tratar os recursos hídricos locais (como a dessalinização) ou para transportar água por aquedutos ao longo de grandes distâncias”, pontuou White. “Sempre afirmei que o direito básico deve ser de todos poderem pagar para obter água potável”, disse à IPS, referindo-se à decisão da Assembleia Geral da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) de, em 2010, declarar a água e o saneamento um direito humano.

Hoje os pobres pagam mais pela água do que os ricos, seja em dinheiro ou em trabalho investido para adquiri-la. Tampouco os primeiros têm assegurada uma qualidade decente do recurso, lamentou White. “Aqui, quando digo pobres me refiro aos desfavorecidos economicamente em uma sociedade particular, e também às nações que não são tão ricas”, explicou. A menos que sejam estendidos serviços a essas pessoas, elas sofrerão, advertiu. E, para fazer isso, é preciso investimentos para desenvolvê-los e mantê-los.

“De fato, todos deveriam pagar um preço pela água, mas segundo seus meios, assim fortaleceriam seu direito de acesso a uma oferta confiável e de qualidade”, observou Lall, acrescentando que essa deveria ser a grande meta, e não apenas a declaração da água como um direito humano. Envolverde/IPS

Climate change and the Syrian uprising (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

BY SHAHRZAD MOHTADI | 16 AUGUST 2012

Article Highlights

  • A drought unparalleled in recent Syrian history lasted from 2006 to 2010 and led to an unprecedented mass migration of 1.5 million people from farms to urban centers.
  • Because the Assad regime’s economic policies had largely ignored water issues and sustainable agriculture, the drought destroyed many farming communities and placed great strain on urban populations.
  • Although not the leading cause of the Syrian rebellion, the drought-induced migration from farm to city clearly contributed to the uprising and serves as a warning of the potential impact of climate change on political stability.

Two days short of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak’s resignation, Al Jazeera published anarticle, headlined “A Kingdom of Silence,” that contended an uprising was unlikely in Syria. The article cited the country’s “popular president, dreaded security forces, and religious diversity” as reasons that the regime of Bashar al-Assad would not be challenged, despite the chaos and leadership changes already wrought by the so-called Arab Spring. Less than one month later, security forces arrested a group of schoolchildren in the Syrian city of Dara’a, the country’s southern agricultural hub, for scrawling anti-government slogans on city walls. Subsequent protests illustrated the chasm between the regime’s public image — encapsulated in the slogan “Unity, Freedom and Socialism” — and a reality of widespread public disillusion with Assad and his economic policies.

Among the many historical, political, and economic factors contributing to the Syrian uprising, one has been devastating to Syria, yet remains largely unnoticed by the outside world. That factor is the complex and subtle, yet powerful role that climate change has played in affecting the stability and longevity of the state.

The land now encompassed by Syria is widely credited as being the place where humans first experimented with agriculture and cattle herding, some 12,000 years ago. Today, the World Bank predicts the area will experience alarming effects of climate change, with the annual precipitation level shifting toward a permanently drier condition, increasing the severity and frequency of drought.

From 1900 until 2005, there were six droughts of significance in Syria; the average monthly level of winter precipitation during these dry periods was approximately one-third of normal. All but one of these droughts lasted only one season; the exception lasted two. Farming communities were thus able to withstand dry periods by falling back on government subsidies and secondary water resources. This most recent, the seventh drought, however, lasted from 2006 to 2010, an astounding four seasons — a true anomaly in the past century. Furthermore, the average level of precipitation in these four years was the lowest of any drought-ridden period in the last century.

While impossible to deem one instance of drought as a direct result of anthropogenic climate change, a 2011 report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regarding this recent Syrian drought states: “Climate change from greenhouse gases explained roughly half the increased dryness of 1902-2010.” Martin Hoerling, the lead researcher of the study, explains: “The magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone. This is not encouraging news for a region that already experiences water stress, because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region’s climate to normal.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that global warming will induce droughts even more severe in this region in the coming decades.

It is estimated that the Syrian drought has displaced more than 1.5 million people; entire families of agricultural workers and small-scale farmers moved from the country’s breadbasket region in the northeast to urban peripheries of the south. The drought tipped the scale of an unbalanced agricultural system that was already feeling the weight of policy mismanagement and unsustainable environmental practices. Further, lack of contingency planning contributed to the inability of the system to cope with the aftermath of the drought. Decades of poorly planned agricultural policies now haunt Syria’s al-Assad regime.

An unsustainable history. Hafez al-Assad — the father of the current president, Bashar al-Assad — ruled Syria for three decades in a fairly non-religious and paradoxical way. To some degree, he modernized the nation’s economy and opened it to the outside world; at the same time, his regime was infamous for repression and the murder of citizens. The elder al-Assad relied on support from the rural masses to maintain his authority, and during his rule, the agricultural sector became one of the most important pillars of the economy. In a 1980 address to the nation, he said: “I am first and last — and of this I hope every Syrian citizen and every Arab outside of Syria will take cognizance — a peasant and the son of a peasant. To lie amidst the spikes of grain or on the threshing floor is, in my eyes, worth all the palaces in the world.” Hafez al-Assad assured the Syrian people of their right to food security and economic stability, granting subsidies to reduce the price of food, oil, and water. The regime emphasized food self-sufficiency, first achieved with wheat in the 1980s. Cotton, a water-intensive crop requiring irrigation, was heavily promoted as a “strategic crop,” at one point becoming Syria’s second-largest export, after oil. As agricultural production swelled, little to no attention was paid to the environmental effects of such short-term, unsustainable agricultural goals.

With a steadfast emphasis on quick agricultural and industrial advancements, the Baathist regime did little to promote the sustainable use of water. In the two decades before the current drought, the state invested heavily in irrigation systems — yet they remain underdeveloped, extremely inefficient, and insufficient. The majority of irrigation systems use groundwater as their main source, because the amount of water from rivers is inadequate. As of 2005, the government began requiring licenses to dig agricultural wells. There are claims that the regime wishes to keep the Kurdish-majority region in the northeast of the country underdeveloped and has denied licenses to some farmers in the region. Whatever the reasons, well licenses are generally difficult to obtain; as a result, more than half the country’s wells are dug illegally and are therefore unregulated. Groundwater reserves PDF in the years leading up to the drought were rapidly depleted.

Unheeded warnings. In 2001, the World Bank warned PDF, “The (Syrian) Government will need to recognize that achieving food security with respect to wheat and other cereals in the short-term as well as the encouragement of water-intensive cotton appear to be undermining Syria’s security over the long-term by depleting available groundwater resources.” With energy and water heavily subsidized by the state, farmers were further encouraged to increase production rather than set sustainable goals.

The price of wheat skyrocketed in 2005, and an overconfident Syrian government sold much of its emergency wheat reserve. In 2008, due to the drought, the Syrian government was forced to concede that its policy of self-sufficiency had failed, and for the first time in two decades it began importing wheat. Meanwhile, nearly 90 percent of the barley crop failed, doubling the price of animal feed in the first year of the drought alone. Small livestock herders in the northeast have lost 70 percent and more of their herds, and many have been forced to migrate. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, one-fourth of the country’s herds were lost as a result of the drought.

In recent years, Assad’s promises of food security have vanished; the United Nationsreports that the diet of 80 percent of those severely affected by the drought now consists largely of bread and sugared tea. For those who have remained in the nearly deserted rural communities of Syria’s northeast, food prices have skyrocketed, and 80 percent of residents in the drought-stricken regions are living under the poverty threshold. In 2003, agriculture accounted for one-fourth of Syria’s gross domestic product; in 2008, a year into the drought, that fraction was just 17 percent. The government’s drought management has been reactive, untimely, poorly coordinated, and poorly targeted, according to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. PDF

The chaotic result. Since the drought began, temporary settlements composed largely of displaced rural people have formed on the outskirts of Damascus, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, and Dara’a — the latter city being the site of the first significant protest in the country in March 2011. This migration has exacerbated economic strains already caused by nearly two million refugees from neighboring Iraq and Palestine. A confidential cable from the American embassy in Damascus to the US State Department, written shortly after the drought began, warned of the unraveling social and economic fabric of Syria’s rural farming communities due to the drought. It noted that the mass migration “could act as a multiplier on social and economic pressures already at play and undermine stability in Syria.” Reporting during the uprising in late 2011, the late New York Times correspondent Anthony Shadid recounts: “There’s that sense of corruption in the society itself, that the society itself is falling apart, being pulled apart; that the countryside is miserable; that there’s nothing being done to make lives better there.” Reports show that the earliest points of unrest were those that were most economically devastated by the drought and served as migratory settlement points.

“The regime’s failure to put in place economic measures to alleviate the effects of drought was a critical driver in propelling such massive mobilizations of dissent,” concludes Suzanne Saleeby, a contributor to Jadaliyya, a digital magazine produced by the Arab Studies Institute. “In these recent months, Syrian cities have served as junctures where the grievances of displaced rural migrants and disenfranchised urban residents meet and come to question the very nature and distribution of power.”

The considerations that impel an individual to protest in streets that are known to be lined by armed security forces extend beyond an abstract desire for democracy. Only a sense of extreme desperation and hopelessness can constitute the need — rather than a mere desire — to bring change to a country’s economic, political, and social systems. A combination of stress factors resulting from policies of economic liberalization — including growing income disparities and the geographic limitations of the economic reforms — shattered the Syrian regime’s projected image of stability. Even if it was not the leading cause of the Syrian rebellion, the drought and resulting migration played an important role in triggering the civil unrest now underway in Syria.

The drought in Syria is one of the first modern events in which a climactic anomaly resulted in mass migration and contributed to state instability. This is a lesson and a warning for the greater catalyst that climate change will become in a region already under the strains of cultural polarity, political repression, and economic inequity.