This New Year is special for all of us at Strategic Foresight Group as we complete five years of an exciting journey. We celebrate it by presenting a new thought to the world – An Inclusive World. It is the concept of a world where practical political processes help to replace despair by hope, polarisation by the spirit of humanity and cleavages by a common space in which you, I and everyone have a stake. We have presented it in the form of an essay prepared with input from all continents.

In the last five years, beginning with 9/11, 2001, much has happened.

1. About 5,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks executed by Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
2. Somewhere between 50,000 to 500,000 people have been killed in the US led counter terrorism actions and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. More than 50,000,000 (fifty million) children have been killed on account of hunger, malnutrition and inadequate healthcare – but really due to global policy neglect as the world never considered preventing these deaths, matching the tally of the Second World War, as its topmost priority above everything else.

In the last five years, something else has also happened.

1. About 200 million people from India and China have crossed from poverty to a place in the market economy.
2. Research institutes in 13 countries swiftly cooperated to prevent the spread of a new disease (SARS).
3. New technologies in telecommunication, information, biotechnology, clean technology and other sectors have created new growth opportunities and improved living standards in many parts of the world.
4. Poor people in Sri Lanka and elsewhere rushed to the help of cyclone victims in the United States with financial assistance.

Interestingly, the first two of the three destructive developments have resulted from or in response to the dominant strategic thinking in Washington DC and London. The third and the most heinous destructive development is the result of a global mindset where such deaths are viewed in the context of soft humanitarian issues and not as THE topmost strategic priority of the world’s leaders. The four positive developments have resulted from the free spirit of humanity in Colombo and California, Beijing and Bangalore.

We have seen the consequences of the dominance of strategic thinking in Washington DC, London and to some extent Paris ever since the end of the First World War. At Paris in 1919, President Wilson conceptualised the principle of self-determination. It applied to the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian and German empires but it did not apply to the colonies of the European powers. Instead, Americans blessed a shared land grab by the British and the French in the Middle East, following the end of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the Second World War, Yalta produced a neat arrangement for European security but no vision for the vast population of Asia and Africa. Later on, the Cold War trapped many countries in Africa and Asia, thanks largely to greed of power hungry politicians in those parts of the world, in cycles of internal and regional conflicts. The strategic thinking in Washington DC also produced support for anti-Communist forces that wanted to use religion for political ends. Osama bin Laden was a child of the strategic thought in Washington DC and London, though not necessarily of conscious strategies pursued in those capitals.

The strategic thinking in Washington DC and London has definitely proved to be much better than the one in Moscow where monopoly of the Politburo was sold as egalitarianism. That is why dominant Western thought is popular in many Eastern European countries. It has also supported free trade and investment flows. That is why it has certain appeal in parts of East Asia, and increasingly in India. The influential minds in Washington DC and London must be credited for contributing to freedom and prosperity in some parts of the world. But the dominance of their thought also bears responsibility for many internal wars during the Cold War, a messy Middle East, a divided Latin America, and the neglect of real issues that should have been on the top of the global agenda.

My critics might argue that the issue is not the dominance of any particular strategic thought. It is a strategic reality that the United States enjoys disproportionately greater power than any other state in the world. The US military spending is more than ten times that of China or Russia. The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world. The US economy drives the world. All this is true but it explains only part of the story.

The US military personnel number around 1.5 million, including an army of half a million. In asymmetrical warfare, like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, smart weapons can destroy the enemy but they do not help you win the war. There is no alternative to ground forces. The US ability to expand its army is limited. It needs allies who can supply troops. Also, the US economy, though still dominant, is on decline. Its share in global domestic product has come down from 50% after the Second World War to 33% now and will further reduce to 15-20% by 2025. Most significantly, the American position as the leader of a community of values is eroded after Iraq.

The real strength of the United States is in its financial muscle and technological edge. But who is helping it to build these strengths when it is facing potential crisis with its double deficits? The Gulf States and China deploy most of their surpluses in US Treasury Bills, enabling American consumers to spend beyond their means, and the US government to spend its $500 billion on the military. Some of these surpluses also find their way to the equity and debt portfolios of American (as well as British and continental European) companies helping them in their upward technological mobility. Norway has a Petroleum Fund of $150-200 billion. It is invested in 4000 companies. Most of these companies are from the United States, UK and continental Europe. Russia has a similar fund of similar size – again invested in American and West European companies. India has high quality technical manpower, particularly in information technology and increasingly in biotechnology. Most of it is deployed to service and maintain the infrastructure of American business corporations. The financial and technological edge of the United States is thus to a large extent enabled by others. It is to the credit of the strategic thinkers in the US and UK that they are able to achieve strategic superiority in the world despite limited ground forces, unhealthy fiscal deficit, declining share in global manufacturing output and eroding moral appeal.

We certainly need the current dominant strategic thought for the good it delivers. However, we can not afford to be solely guided by it because of the dangers it poses. We need alternative strategic visions that does not necessarily counter the view emerging from Washington DC and London but that does lead to the evolution of independent ideas that are relevant to vast majority of the world’s population.

Currently, we see some symptoms of new thinking in Europe, particularly in the Scandinavian countries; though this is still under the broad umbrella of thought leadership emanating from Washington DC and London. There are centres of strategic research in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America but vast majority of them are like retailers distributing the thoughts produced in Washington DC and London – though they do voice their specific local concerns. It’s only in China and Russia that we see a few signs of independent strategic thinking that visualise a world where the current dominant thinking co-exists with other patterns of thinking on strategic issues.

Interestingly, the most significant effort to provide alternatives to the current dominant strategic thought is made in the United States itself. There is no doubt that the people of the United States know the consequences of being unreasonable. They revolted against the Vietnam War and they might just elect Senator Obama to the White House. The American system that empowers the son of a Russian immigrant to establish Google has many positive characteristics. It is only in the United States that they can think of establishing a mining business on the moon in 2024. It is a great nation that can inspire others (and attract those surpluses). However, it does not mean that we should blindfold ourselves to accept the dominance of its strategic thought.

There is a deeper issue at stake. In the 20th century, the United States, UK and France were engaged in international rivalries, first against Germany and later on against the former Soviet Union. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, it is generally argued that the nature of conflict has shifted from an international to internal sphere. Conflict is now perceived to be a problem of developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Balkans. As a result, the last decade has seen mushrooming of many institutions to resolve regional and internal conflicts in the developing world. But there is a clear deficit of thought leadership on how to resolve conflicts where global powers are parties to international warfare and not merely arbitrators in regional strife. The ground reality is that we are slowly moving back to the era of international conflict. China, Russia and Iran are expected to challenge the status quo. There are indications of 15 to 20% population of Europe and the United States turning towards religious fundamentalism, xenophobia and racism – not enough to take over states but perhaps enough to influence policies of even those who do not believe in them. When those who dominate the present strategic thought are party to a set of emerging rivalries, we cannot naturally expect them to be fair. On the other hand, we need not support their rivals. We need strategic thinking which is not allowed to be the prisoner of any one player in the emerging global game.

Even deeper is the question whether we perceive the twenty first century as the age of risk or opportunity. A human security report published in 2005 argued that the threat from conflict has declined since the 1990s. It was commenting on a period beginning after the genocides in Sudan, Congo and Rwanda that killed some 5 million people and ending before the toll in Iraq picked up (roughly 1993 to 2003). This is like saying Europe was a peaceful continent from 1919 to 1939. If we want to look at the sunny side of the earth, there are other stories. China managed to lift 200 million people out of poverty in the last two decades. India is set to achieve this target in one decade. Vietnam is following the two Asian giants in the race for prosperity. There is simmering talk of economic dynamism and Renaissance in parts of the Middle East and Africa. We should not discount risk but our strategic calculations must take into account the promise of opportunities.

Several men and women of wisdom have said that all actions begin with a thought in the mind of someone. We live an era where empires have made way for nations and nations are slowly making way for networks of people within and across conventional borders. In a way this is democratisation of the human society. We also live an era where democratisation of the economy has a reasonable prospect of winning over the forces of monopoly. Such an era is incongruent with the world of monopolist strategic thought. Unless there is a genuine democratisation of strategic thinking, violent reaction from those who consider themselves to be victims of the present mindset is bound to take place. A big question of our time is whether a new consciousness will emerge that democratises strategic thought to produce an inclusive world of abundant opportunities in which everyone has a stake or whether the present monopoly of strategic thought will force us to continue to live in the world at risk.