Kaplan's presentation proposed several potential problems for the future international environment. "Looking ahead is very, very difficult," he said. "We may not even have names yet for some of the catastrophes and even good things that are going to happen in the future." Kaplan noted that looking at history is the best, if not the only way to predict the future.
"The only serious futurology is history," he said. "The best you can do is to be less surprised by what happens in the future."
After a brief introduction by Professor of Political Science Ron Tiersky, Kaplan began his talk by saying that he would not focus on Sept. 11. "In spite of what happened, the world still goes on," he said, though he added that the audience would likely pick up on several ways that his comments could apply to the events of Sept. 11.
Kaplan mentioned that the best way to approach predictions about the future is to conceive of and plan for all possible problems. He cited America's founders as people who effectively planned for the future by focusing on what could go wrong.
"They deliberately cultivated a sense of tragedy … the founders were constructive pessimists," Kaplan said. "Constructive pessimism is profoundly the American tradition."
Turning to the forces that are now shaping world affairs, Kaplan suggested that one of the key forces of global instability is the presence of developing countries. Using Karachi, Pakistan as an example of "a small version of what is happening throughout the developing world."
"What development does, what progress does, is to leave people galloping ahead of their government," said Kaplan. He explained that instability, rebellion and general dissatisfaction come from people that have experienced periods of growth, who have "new grievances, new ambitions, new yearnings," and who are confronted with a slow-down or a lack of expected amenities.
Kaplan also cited structures still in place from the age of imperialism as sources of global instability. He said that the leadership, infrastructure and influence in the developing world "began to fray apart in the 1990s," and pointed to Somalia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda as examples.
Urbanization and resource scarcity resulting from urbanization were other destabilizing forces that Kaplan focused on. "The rulers won't be governing countries; it will be more like governing large city-states," he said. Kaplan added that the scarcity of water and electricity are likely to contribute to growing discontent in developing areas. "What [recourse scarcity] is, is an aggravator, it is like background noise … it makes their fuses even shorter."
Kaplan also mentioned "sideswipes," unexpected events such as diseases and environmental disasters as other sources of instability. "At some point," he said, "there will be an environmental event that will lead to the overthrow of a regime in a very strategic part of the world."
Governments were also included in Kaplan's list of destabilizing forces. "Democracy tends to work when it comes last," said Kaplan.
He emphasized the importance of making human rights and poverty low priorities until democracy is established. "I think what we are going to start to see is many mixed regimes," he said, emphasizing that all these regimes will call themselves democracies and "we will all go along with the lie for the sake of democracy."
Kaplan spoke of a coming destabilization and fragmentation in the Middle East, saying that the in the future we will see "many messy Mexico-style democracies." He defined such regimes as being "democratic on top, still unstable on the bottom."
Technology was the final destabilizing force Kaplan addressed. "This whole technological revolution is going to be very destabilizing," he said. "The disparities are going to be enormous."
After predicting future conflict and fragmentation in south and central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, Kaplan said, "It is impossible to believe that India and Pakistan are the last word in political organization in those areas."
Kaplan ended his comments by comparing the power of the United States with that of the Persian Empire around the time of the Peloponnesian War. Kaplan noted that, though the influence of America is wide, influence is not necessarily the deciding factor in a conflict. "It is on one level the most powerful country, but that doesn't mean all that much in specific cases," he said.
"I really enjoyed the break down of the hot spots of what is happening," said Emily Weaver, a Mount Holyoke College student who attended the lecture.
Tom Fritzsche '03 came to Kaplan's talk because, "it is always important to stay on top of current events, not just in the U.S. but abroad," he said. "What he said about the importance of water as a resource … it is a totally new thought."
"One thing he didn't really talk much about were the economic unity groups like the EU and NAFTA. I am kind of curious how that fits into his general theories," Fritzsche added.