Orwellian

Orwell wrote of three nation-states in nineteen eighty-four. I haven’t read it—though it’s on my bookshelf in ready—, but from all impressions to date this doesn’t appear to be, in any way, a good thing; except maybe for the two percent of the population in the inner party. As the U.S. is the only super power by almost all estimates—except those of the U.S., which like to put China above its means in order to create polarity—so the social structure must be different. It may not be better than the Orwellian dystopia, but at least different. And then I realized that even though Orwell’s number may have been off, we’re closer to a single-digit tally of super-states than we probably should be.

These are all hypothetical because I’m optimistic nations will choose sovereignty over conglomeration, but there seem to be some alliances that will stand stronger than others. When the U.S. became the sole super power almost sixty years ago, it had the potential of being a diplomatic powerhouse. We didn’t go that route, and consequently are the catalyst to what could be five politically, economically, and militarily linked super-states.

Latin America would be the most important as far as proximity. These nations have different ideals and goals, but many have a distaste for U.S. policies. With a leader like Chávez in Venezuela, who is passionate, vocal, and determined, there’s no telling how these nations could fall together. Most of these countries have a lot of American influence, some have had governments created or destroyed by covert actions or political backing of the U.S. and still others just have the same bad taste in their mouths that most of the world has when mentioning U.S. policy. If an event with multinational repercussions were to fall on them, it may only take a small nudge to push them together in a makeshift alliance against the U.S. Or maybe just an alliance to protect their resources and politics from U.S. control.

In my opinion China, India, the Koreas, and the Philippines would, at least geographically have a strong link. China’s thirst for natural resources will grow in the next decades and a pipeline through Pakistan or India to the oil in Iraq and Iran would be extremely advantageous. Until Jong-il’s demise, North Korea will likely be blocked out of any alliance. It would be the most populous super-state. The countries are incredibly independent, but also seem to have an affinity for diplomacy that the U.S. and parts of the E.U. lack. Even with policy differences, they, especially China and India, have many ties to the U.S. that, if broken, could knock their economy off balance. This is probably the conglomerate with the least potential of happening without a long series of events and policy shifts forcing it into existence.

Because of the destruction of Iraq, a middle-eastern super state may be closer than it would have been. Saddam was an evil leader, but he tolerated Israel and despised Iran. With him out of the equation it’s too easy for Syria and Iran to increase their influence in the region geographically between them. Iran has incentive to lay pipeline through Pakistan or Turkey in order to get their oil to China and Russia, the two larger, and oil thirsty, powers to their east. They’ve already been grouped together in U.S. rhetoric. Afghanistan is ripe for influence because of U.S. military campaigns as well. There are cultural differences between these nations that would cause the alliance to be tentative, but as the region with the largest oil reserves and the largest cultural divide with the west, it would still be relatively strong if they were pushed to work together more closely.

The European Union already exists and, though somewhat weak, groups many nations in similar policies. They already have a mutual currency. They are probably the most culturally diverse super-state from appearances, but their histories intertwine and their overall concerns seem to be fairly similar. It encompasses twenty-seven countries and has a combined gross domestic product of fourteen trillion U.S. dollars and even have it’s own elected government.

Africa seems to be it’s own conglomeration already, but not one that will compete on the world stage. Instead it appears to be a giant land mass for the other super-states to strip as many resources from as possible. There are a few global players that come up as wild cards. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Japan could be placed with many different alliances depending on their political climate at the time. Their diplomatic ties today seem solid enough, but could shift easily.

The main super-state I’m concerned with though is my own. Or our own. Or however you’d like to describe the super-state that shares my continental real estate. This would be the regional super-state of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. with satellite countries like Israel and Australia being heavily involved. Until Australia destroys itself with horrible environmental policies and Israel is destroyed by the more powerful middle eastern super-state, that is.

Without public debate, or even knowledge, government officials from Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., have been meeting to expand NAFTA. They established what is now dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [SPP] and will essentially strengthen the borders to the east and west while dissolving the borders between the three nations. While the name has the connotation of a Utopian ideal, it is counteracted by a seat for NACC members, but no invitations given to social groups or parliamentary groups from any of the three countries. Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. corporations are drooling over the potential profits this could birth, but the left from Mexico and Canada, and the right of the U.S. are making protest. The implementation of these policies is arguably a complete end to national sovereignty for all three, and would likely be exponentially more profitable for the U.S. while Mexico and Canada’s resources are exploited.

As I said above, I haven’t read nineteen eighty-four, but I don’t think Orwell had this in mind as a social model to strive for. In reality this is far-fetched. There aren’t enough factors in play to force independent states together. But what would happen if we run out of water? Or the atmosphere turns against us? Or sea water rises and floods major metropolitan areas? Or global droughts cause a drop in food provisions below what can feed even a small percentage of the population? Or there is a massive species extinction that destroys whole ecosystems?

The chances of any of those things jumps significantly without environmental reform. Is it too late to fight the current toward global catastrophe? Will the battle for natural resources force nations to combine their strength in a Voltron-esque fashion to secure a future? Who knows, but it sounds like an amazing book.