Thomas P.M. Barnett

[kandrathe]

I watched his presentation and interview twice this last week on CSPAN and found his world view to be thoughtful and compelling. I was interested if anyone else has heard of him, and what they think of his stuff. His thoughts and book seem to be getting quite a bit of attention from some high level people in Washington.

The CSPAN presentation
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter122004_barnett.rm?mode=compact

His Web Site

The Book

In a nutshell;

"Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap. " What he see is an emerging set of rules in the global economy where 2/3 are players, and 1/3 are left out. What we need to do is to integrate the gap and get them up to speed with the game.

He explains how and why up to 9/10/2001 that the US was still mostly aligned for fighting "global nuclear war", and was marginally capable of fighting one or perhaps two limited theatre wars. Our military is designed and probably the best in the world at kicking butt. It is so important that we have a cabinet level post and a department of War(or Defense). For those nations that are in the core, who we get along with well we have another high level Department of Peace (or State). However, as we see time after time in the wake of this butt kicking there is a void (i.e. nation building) that the US does not engage in and has no "Department of ". Barnett calls this the Department of Transition, or the Department of Everything Else. It would be this Departments job to rehabilitate a failed state back into a player within the global economy.

I especially enjoyed how he diagrams the disconnects between the UNSC, to the US needing to resurrect the tired old mantra of "imminent threat" to try to justify ousting Saddam, and when that fails they resort to "Look out, he's got a gun!". And, then the "Well, I thought he had a gun. It looked alot like a gun." The reason? There is no executive authority beyond the UNSC to make a decision as to what the neccesary course of action should be.

So, then when the decision is made to actually do something, either by the UN with the US's help, or the US with some token help, the US goes in and kicks butt. Now there is another gap. On the heels of the military force there should have been an even bigger peace keeping and nation building force, and without it we see looting, the break down of civil authority, the entrance of insurgents, missing critical materials, etc. The third gap is the extraction of the transition team, or what is the exit strategy.

[Occhidiangela]

There is no executive authority beyond the UNSC to make a decision as to what the neccesary course of action should be.

[right][snapback]64021[/snapback][/right]

And the day that "executive authority" arrives, I'll be one of the partisans shooting at its agents, setting off IED's, and using terror as my weapon of resistance.

I still believe in the balancing required by the system of sovereign states.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

"Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder.  These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core.  But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists.  These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap. "[right][snapback]64021[/snapback][/right]

Very good. But which does he think are the horse and which the cart. For on a simple reading, it seems that he is saying that prosperity brings peace. I think that that is backwards, I think it is peace that brings prosperity. And the impediments to peace are not poverty, not lack of globalization or connectivity, but bigotry, ideology (especially religious ideology), and, especially, ignorance. To try to repair the 'gap' by imposing the results of prosperity rather than its causes brings to mind the old joke about the floggings continuing until moral improves.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And the day that "executive authority" arrives, I'll be one of the partisans shooting at its agents, setting off IED's, and using terror as my weapon of resistance. 

I still believe in the balancing required by the system of sovereign states.

Occhi
[right][snapback]64025[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, some of it seems like the scarier part of "a new world order". I think his idea was that the executive would still be a council, like if the G20 were all at the summit level. The more (economic) skin you have in the game the more your vote counts. He actually says this social evolution is in play, it is inevitable that we (in the Core) adopt some process and criteria for deciding what to do, and who gets it.

[Occhidiangela]

Yeah, some of it seems like the scarier part of "a new world order".  I think his idea was that the executive would still be a council, like if the G20 were all at the summit level.    The more (economic) skin you have in the game the more your vote counts.  He actually says this social evolution is in play, it is inevitable that we (in the Core) adopt some process and criteria for deciding what to do, and who gets it.
[right][snapback]64034[/snapback][/right]

We already do, "decide what to do" via a variety of international forums. The UN, NATO, G-7, EU, and for that matter, OAS and OAU. The effectiveness and utility of each "decision" is tied to the ability to achieve consensus and come up with the resources to execute the decision. It also is immensely influenced by buy in: are you in but in, or in but out? Each nation's government chooses how deep into any given tar baby it wants to sink its fists.

Collective action is all around us. Look at how quickly a whole host of international players have responded to the Quake - Tsunami.

The problem is, not all decisions can be arrived at via perfectly acceptable consensus. Some options preclude others, and do not lend themselves to "one from column A and two from column B" courses of action. Conflict of aims and will is not always resolvable by discussion.

Too bad. Where it can be, I think we move, collectively, forward.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Very good.  But which does he think are the horse and which the cart.  For on a simple reading, it seems that he is saying that prosperity brings peace.  I think that that is backwards, I think it is peace that brings prosperity.  And the impediments to peace are not poverty, not lack of globalization or connectivity, but bigotry, ideology (especially religious ideology), and, especially, ignorance.  To try to repair the 'gap' by imposing the results of prosperity rather than its causes brings to mind the old joke about the floggings continuing until moral improves.

--Pete
[right][snapback]64026[/snapback][/right]

He uses the past 50 or 100 years as examples of how former gap nations were brought into the core. This is done mostly via the mechanisms we have in place already, economic development, world bank, investment, etc. If the former is untenable due to a lack of security, then a security force is imposed until the mechanisms of peace can be implemented. This is how it has been done, only in a fairly shot gun and haphazard way. In the past when this rehabilitation occurs it requires the UN, or the US to reinvent the process, pass the hat to collect the funds for the transition, bludgeon our allies into contributing some manpower to the effort, and examine our forces to see which 19 year old trigger pullers would be the best at giving succor, and not killing the population. It is strange that even in this Indonesia tsunami disaster that the most visible sign of aid from the US will be US war ships pulling up to make drinkable water.

[kandrathe]

...The problem is, not all decisions can be arrived at via perfectly acceptable consensus. Some options preclude others, and do not lend themselves to "one from column A and two from column B" courses of action. Conflict of aims and will is not always resolvable by discussion.
...
[right][snapback]64035[/snapback][/right]

The main point being that in order to impose the transition, as we did in Iraq, the executive should not need to resort to making the case for "imminent threat". Iraq was indicted by the grand jury of the UNSC how many times? Even for many of those who disagreed with the Iraq war, the question was not "if" they deserved it, but "when". Dr. Barnetts point is that at the moment the US, and western allies are calling the shots, but over then next 10 to 20 years the center of gravity on economic and world power will shift toward China and India.

My biggest concern is the opportunity for corruption that exists amongst the decision making council. The UN Oil for Food scandal is an example where the mobster was able to buy off some key votes on the jury.

[Chaerophon]

Hi,
Very good.  But which does he think are the horse and which the cart.  For on a simple reading, it seems that he is saying that prosperity brings peace.  I think that that is backwards, I think it is peace that brings prosperity.  And the impediments to peace are not poverty, not lack of globalization or connectivity, but bigotry, ideology (especially religious ideology), and, especially, ignorance.  To try to repair the 'gap' by imposing the results of prosperity rather than its causes brings to mind the old joke about the floggings continuing until moral improves.

--Pete
[right][snapback]64026[/snapback][/right]

Well said!

[Chaerophon]

This is done mostly via the mechanisms we have in place already, economic development, world bank, investment, etc.

Funny, it is the S.E. Asian countries that have been most successful in developing and they took the first steps towards interventionist, export-led growth prior to the present post-1980's debt-crisis development regime. They engaged in a moderate level of planning/subsidized growth and, despite the blip in the mid-'90's, continue to grow largely on their own terms...

Ever heard of Rostow? Five 'stages' of development that every nation must follow... 'take-off', etc. Pure and utter crap. Each nation requires particular attention and faces unique circumstances. The present 'development' regime that applies the same peg to every hole is no resource to draw on as proof of past success, and should be no inspiration for future plans.

[kandrathe]

...
The present 'development' regime that applies the same peg to every hole is no resource to draw on as proof of past success, and should be no inspiration for future plans.
...
[right][snapback]64048[/snapback][/right]

I can't believe that the safety net of the World Bank, low interest loans, investment, development, and extensive debt relief by western nations have not been extremely helpful in SE Asia. I believe the catalyst for all that is happening there can be traced back to the nation building that occured in Japan after WWII. The point is that with economic aid, there is a long legacy and a plan, even if that plan gets rewritten, it is a basis for progress.

I don't think Dr. Barnett advocates a cookie cutter approach, but that eventually more and more nations are joining the "core", however they arrive at that level of security. If you look at the former Yugoslavia, parts of it were ready and others are working toward it. Perhaps with Iraq, the northern Kurds, and the Southern Shiites are ready, with the region around Baghdad lagging until they move through some more extensive transition to achieve security. Interestingly, one key he mentions for our success in the Middle East is a thawing or relations with Iran, where he believes we need to develop to become the economic juggernaut of the region.

Things can change drastically, if the conditions for change exist. Whoever thought 20 years ago that Russia would desire a market economy and to join NATO? Whoever thought that a thriving market economy was possible in China? How about an EU? Or, Turkey and Greece as EU partners? Or, Egypt, Jordan and Isreal as development partners in Gaza?

But rather than suppose what Dr. Barnett thinks about globalization, I found his own words more eloquent;

The bath water called al Queda

by Thomas "I'm a reductionist, and damn proud of it!" P.M. Barnett

I spend a chapter (#4, The Core and the Gap) in my book presenting what I know is a rather simplistic and clearly reductionist model of globalization as four key flows worth preserving and keeping in balance. My basic notion is that the U.S. and other great powers must do whatever it takes to allow these resources to continue flowing from those regions where they exist in abundance to those regions where they are scarce. My four flows, detailed first in my article with Hank Gaffney entitled "The Global Transaction Strategy" are as follows:

  1. People have to flow from the Gap to the Core, as the latter ages demographically.

  2. Energy has to flow from the Gap to the New Core especially (specifically, Developing Asia), where energy use will double in the next two decades.

  3. Foreign direct investment needs to flow from the Old Core (U.S., Europe, Japan) to the New Core (especially China, Russia, and India) in order to enable their further integration into the Core.

  4. Finally, security has to flow from the Old Core (especially from the system Leviathan known as the U.S.) to the Gap, with a special emphasis in the near- and mid-term on the Middle East due to its central role as breeding ground for transnational terrorism and as the major source of energy for Developing Asia.

Those are the four flows: security, money, energy, and people. Keep 'em in balance and globalization will continue to progress. Screw any one of them with this Global War on Terrorism and we can end up killing globalization just like we did back in the 1930s.
Here is the story from the Wall Street Journal (28 March): "Geopolitical Fears Hurt Stocks." It's about stock markets falling over much of the world as a result of recent events.

Here's the quote I like. It's the first paragraph in the article:
"When investors focus more on world instability than on business fundamentals, stocks tend to fall. That is what happened yesterday, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average gave up almost 122 points amid worries about terrorism, Asian stability and the price of oil."

When I go on and on in my book about the need to get off thinking about war solely within the context of war and instead start thinking about war within the context of everything else, this is exactly the sort of every-day linkage I'm talking about. I once described this linkage from A to Z in a Decalogue ("Asia: The Military-Market Link") that I update and expand to describe all of globalization at the start of Chapter 4 in the book.

Here are the "Ten Commandments" as I define them:

1. Look for resources and ye shall find, but …
2. No stability, no markets
3. No growth, no stability
4. No resources, no growth
5. No infrastructure, no resources
6. No money, no infrastructure
7. No rules, no money
8. No security, no rules
9. No Leviathan, no security
10. No will, no Leviathan.

That's what I call the Military-Market Nexus.

You get terror in the Middle East, and that spooks the oil markets. The rising oil prices destabilize economic and thus political stability in Asia, so markets respond and investment flows are curtailed. If America pulls out of Iraq, what do you think happens then? Less terror? More stability? Cheaper oil? A faster growing Asia? A better global economy? Globalization's progressive advance to those regions currently on the outside, noses pressed to the glass?

Why does it all matter to the average American? Because most of us have our retirement savings at work on Wall Street, and that money is a crucial fuel to globalization's advance. So, in effect, globalization's success is our collective future either unfolding as planned or disappearing down a rat hole, and the Pentagon and its changing role in national security since 9/11 is part and parcel of this entire process. It's not just something that kicks end when diplomacy fails or when markets are shut down. This is a very iterative and interactive feedback loop, where everything affects everything else.

For example, who do you think buys all that public debt we float to pay for the war in Iraq? That would be our Asian friends primarily, and China and Japan in particular. Guess what happens when they have to pay more for oil, have to hedge more against regional instability, and put up more firewalls due to terrorism fears? They become less willing to pay for our "exporting of security" in this global war on terrorism.

My point: there is no such thing as a "war president" or "unilateral war" or any of that other nonsense about America doing whatever it pleases and to hell with the rest of the world. It all comes back to haunt us on some level, whether we realize it or not. In this war, we fight a networked opponent whose operating domain encompasses all the complexity that is globalization. Either we fight this war with such complexity in mind or we do more damage than good to globalization's future. That's the baby we don't want to throw out with the bath water called al Qaeda.

And yes, you'll feel the pulses of this "distant war" in your market portfolio on a daily basis. That's nothing new. We're just becoming more aware of such connectivity after 9/11.

[kandrathe]

Predictably, Indonesia is having a little trouble accepting the presence of US Leviathon force, even when they are delivering aid.

...
Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said foreign troops would be out of the country by the end of March.

"A three-month period is enough, even the sooner the better," Kalla said.

The moves underscore sensitivities in nationalistic Indonesia at having foreign military forces operating there, even in a humanitarian operation. They also come amid warnings from the Indonesian military that areas of tsunami-battered Aceh province may not be safe for aid workers.

The government ordered aid workers and journalists to declare travel plans or face expulsion from Aceh as authorities moved to reassert control of the rebellion-wracked area.
...