RAND_MR1382

access according to the principle of comparative advantage. 46
Also in December, a forecasting report with a 15-year outlook—Global Trends 2015
—was produced by the National Intelligence Council, based largely on conferences
sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency for consulting nongovernment experts. 47
The report often uses the word “network” and observes that the world and many of its
actors, activities, and infrastructures are ever more networked. Nonetheless, network
dynamics appear more in a background than a foreground role—the report does not do
much to illuminate network dynamics. Moreover, where this future outlook highlights
the growing power and presence of networked nonstate actors of all varieties, it mostly
plays up the perils of terrorists, criminals, and other possible adversaries, along with the
challenges that activist NGOs may pose for states. The report has little to say about the
promising opportunities for a world in which civil-society actors continue to gain
strength through networking and where states may learn to communicate, coordinate,
and act conjointly with them to address legitimate matters of mutual concern, from
democracy to security.
Nationalism, Globalism, and the Two Faces of Netwar
Which face of netwar predominates will depend on the kind of world that takes shape.
The key story lines of the 20th century have come to an end. Imperialism, for example,
has been virtually extirpated. Over half the world’s landmass was under colonial control
in 1900, 48 but only a few tiny colonies are left now. The world’s major totalitarianisms
are also passé. Fascism has gone from being the preferred form of governance among
half the great powers and many lesser states in the 1930s, to near extinction today.
Communism has moved from being a world threat in 1950, to a mere shadow of itself at
the turn of the millennium.
The major old force that remains strongly in play at the dawn of the 21st century is
nationalism, particularly its violence-prone ethnonationalist variety. A good measure of
the continuing power of nationalism, and of the attractiveness of the state as a form of
organization and a focus of nationalist loyalty, is the number of states in existence.
When the United Nations was organized after World War II, almost every nation in the
world joined, for a total of 54 members. Half a century later, membership has more
than tripled, and is closing in on 200.
People without state status want it—and will often engage in terrorist actions to pursue
it. Indeed, the majority of terrorist groups, for a long time, arose from nationalist
motivations (Hoffman, 1998). 49
Playing against the old, persistent, often divisive force of nationalism is the new, more
unifying force of globalism. It is, to an extent, a reincarnation of the 19th century
“Manchester Creed,” which held that the growth of industry and trade would create a
unified, peaceful world governed by a harmony of interests (see Carr, 1939, pp. 41–62).