Future: Tense – The Coming World Order

Citation

Reif, S. (2006), "Future: Tense – The Coming World Order", Foresight, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 68-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680610668090

For more then half a century, far‐sighted people in many countries have been working on a project of international law and order that is our best and perhaps our only chance of avoiding global disaster on an unprecedented scale. It is obviously a hundred‐year project at the very least, for it flies in the face of history and of traditional ideas about human nature, as most supporters were well aware from the start. They had to try anyway, because all the alternative outcomes were so much worse … (Gwynne Dyer).

Few topics today are in greater need of a futures perspective than the exceedingly cluttered debate surrounding the rising tensions between the west and the Muslim world, and in particular, the present direction of American foreign policy. Thankfully, in his most recent work, Future: Tense, best selling author and acclaimed journalist Gwynne Dyer addresses the topic with a clarity and consciousness that is often denied it by mainstream media. Far from mimicking the ideologically fractured studies that usually characterize works on this subject, Dyer draws from his 20 years experience of covering international affairs and approaches the issue from a precise systemic perspective that seems almost clinical in comparison to works of similar focus.

Showing an obvious disdain for simplistic explanations Dyer dedicates the first half of his work to dismantling the conventional arguments propagated by western media sources. He informs his readers that any genuine discussion of international affairs must first begin by dispelling the inflated significance of the threat of terrorism along with the myth of American global military dominance. While he is not arguing that either force is entirely without influence, he is quick to point out that “… both the American and Islamist projects as originally conceived are doomed to fail.” To believe otherwise is to remain ignorant of the true stakes involved in the outcome of the conflict in question.

What is really at risk here is the global project to abolish war and replace the rule of force with the rule of law …

From this premise Dyer continues his argument through careful analysis of the motivations behind the dominant forces within the US Government and the radical Islamist movement. Taken in juxtaposition with a description of the historical framework from which these motivations originated, Dyer, rather than pass judgment on either side, instead provides his readers with an invaluable sense of context through which they can better understand the current conflict between the west and Middle East. For Dyer the relationship between these two opposing forces is symbiotic in nature, with both sides thriving on confrontation with the other. Neither side can ever achieve victory, so we must ask ourselves about the real stakes in this conflict.

The latter part of the book explores the consequences of this dynamic in contrast to the fragile state of international authority and cooperation born during the second half of the twentieth century. Personally, I feel comforted knowing that there are individuals such as Dyer asking these important questions. Like any proper student of the future Dyer is asking all of us to consider the plurality of concerns facing the world in the future and how we might want to face them. The world is getting smaller. Nuclear weapons are no longer the exception but the standard of military power. Global climate change and dwindling resources will only increase regional tensions in the future. The future offers two probable scenarios: either we face these issues through multilateral consensus or we face them through tense regional alliances similar to those that provided the framework for the first and second world wars.

Some readers may not be able to resolve the creative tension between the realities of the present conflict and Dyer's vision for international cooperation. Admittedly, Dyer does not pander to those who are looking for easy solutions. In Dyer's estimation the USA and Middle East are going through a collective identity crisis. Neither side has proven capable of adapting well to the changing conditions of international power dynamics. His only advice to his readers is to refrain from attempts to characterize international affairs through an ideological framework. Instead Dyer offers a different approach, one that will probably make him less than popular with many critics the world over.

In what I think is the most refreshingly lucid point during the course of his argument, Dyer advises the international community to treat the USA and Middle East with patience and careful consideration. Not out of condescension mind you, but from understanding. As the world of the twenty‐first century distances itself from that of the twentieth century we should expect a certain measure of instability as the international order shifts. We need to look beyond the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding present issues of momentary consequence and remember that what is truly at stake is our collective future. I cannot imagine that Dyer will enlist many converts to his holistic school of thought and its long‐view approach. However, those willing to follow his arguments to conclusion shall be rewarded with one of the most insightful explorations of the future of international affairs in the twenty‐first century.