As an aside, I should note up front that Barnett is a very impressive speaker with a well-polished pitch who covers a great deal of ground in a relatively short period of time – three to three-and-one-half hours. I spent most of my time listening carefully, and most of that time agreeing with what he said. When I took the notes that you’ve been reading from over these last few days, they were in response to one of three stimuli, which occurred in roughly equal proportion: 1) something he said seemed particularly profound, 2) he said something that startled me, or 3) he put forth an intriguing idea with which I nevertheless viscerally disagreed.
I only say because, in re-reading my earlier posts, I found myself being more critical in reconstruction here than I remember being during the event. Thinking over it, my notes and later analysis reflect short attention to the profundities in the first instance, and relatively more time mooing over the startling and disagreable aspects. I suspect that’s natural: Something that startles a man my age is probably a notion that goes down a world view alleyway that has long ago been walled off, while I am (like most people) too stubbornly set in my ways to shift my point of view on fundamentals based merely on someone else’s strongly held opinion, no matter how eloquently put – it isn’t that we’re bad people to disagree – but ?† priori assumptions are leavened by subsequent experience and even sought knowledge viewed through the filter of that ?† priori.
That doesn’t make me right or Barnett wrong, and I am likely too obscure to attract his defense/rebuttal. But never mind: It is the second category of stimuli – the startling notion – that a strategic visionary like Barnett provides as value to the listener. He forces us to at least challenge our underlying presumptions, expose them to the air for the first time in what might be years and consider at least the possibilty that they may be wrong. That’s useful, and we’ll be getting a lot of it in this final segment.
Mm-kay?
Today I think I’ll represent Barnett’s view of the world (as I have received it) uninterrupted for the most part by any analysis, saving that for another opportunity – it’s rather too large and complex a subject to play pattycake with.
So: China. Barnett argues that US economic power has peaked and that the PRC’s is rising. Just as the UK retained world influence far out of natural proportion during the decline of empire by hitching its wagon the rising US economic star, so too should the US seek to align ourselves (ed. sorry, I couldn’t resist) with the rise of China. A fifth generation of leadership is rising in China to whom the Communist ideology is merely a vehicle to power rather than a real philosophy of government. The people now in power in China grew up during the Cultural Revolution – they didn’t go to university, they went to the barricades and were ideologically purified.
The generation rising behind them? They went to Harvard.
Our focus is fighting terror, a role for Leviathan. China’s focus is making money and improving the lot of its people – SysAdmin functions. Locking in a relationship now – getting a discount on future Chinese power at today’s prices – could result in a US/China relationship wherein the US retains the Leviathan role and China (and India) provides the body factory for SysAdmin. Standing in the way?
Taiwan.
Taiwan galls China in a way that is difficult for those of us in the West to understand. To us, it is a bastion of free markets and (relatively) free minds. Originally of course, it was the rally point for Chang Kai Shek’s nationalists, the mortal enemy of the Communist Party of China and People’s Liberation Army. It doesn’t help much that it was referred to by Douglas McArthur as “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the Far East.
To the Chinese, it represents not just a renegate province of Chinese nationals, but also a blocking power which sits athwart their access to the region, and indeed the rest of the world. Barnett says that “Archduke Ferdinand is alive and well and living in Taipei,” a reference of course to the Austrian duke whose assassination plunged Western Europe into the slaughter of World War I, setting the stage for an even more barbarous affair twenty-odd years later. His meaning of course is that the US and China should not allow themselves to be dragged into a crippling war to satisfy the urges of domestic Taiwanese policy, that Taiwan should not be able to unilaterally declare war for us. Hong Kong was reabsorbed with relatively little fuss, as was Macao.
Our policy in Asia – and China can help – should be to get rid of Kim Jong Il in North Korea, a true monster who by the way is building nukes. There are three ways, per Barnett, to do so:
1) Ease him into reform – (unlikely, Kim’s got zero interest in reform)
2) Engineer a coup – (next time, send the train back empty)
3) The hard way – (worst choice, for all the obvious reasons)
I’d like to see what’s behind door number 2, Bob!
“BRIC” is the new, or emerging core: Brazil, Russia, India and China. These countries tend to take more risks because of the stresses on their societies.
In the US, people born before 1960 (and some of them born during that year) are imprinted by a Cold War definintion of friends: If you’re like us politically, you’re our friends, and if you disagree with us politically you’re our enemies. Most people born after the 1960′s are not so imprinted. Barnett’s thesis is that we should be friends with people who are more like us economically. In that way, we’d be more like China, India and even Iran – once the current regime is co-opted.
Notes end.
Lex: “Barnett says that ‘Archduke Ferdinand is alive and well and living in Taipei,’ a reference of course to the Austrian duke whose assassination plunged Western Europe into the slaughter of World War II, setting the stage for an even more barbarous affair twenty-odd years later. ”
Otto: “World War II!?”
Boon: “Forget it, he’s rolling.”
Sorry, Capt., with an opportunity like that, I had to take the shot . . .
Cap’n,
I’ve been following this topic since you started it. While I may not be the sort of ‘Big Brain Deep Thinker’ as the rest of your readers, I do like the way Mr. Barrett thinks.
As you say, the US economic power is/has peaked while China’s is still rising. I believe we should also remember the Chinese think long-term. Generations mean nothing to some of their plans. Thus some questions of my own – 1) How does a soveriegn country, noted for long term planning, manage an economic power in a world that thinks short-term? 2) How does that same economic power house keep a lid on its own growing needs without impacting their trading partners?
I agree that China is key to resolving the North Korean threat. China is Kim’s biggest trading partner and, to a large extent, applies the same long-term thought process to the NorKs current situation.
In essence, Mr. Barrett has hit upon the three primary areas of conflict. Radical Islam wants to destroy Western Civilization and bring Sharia Law as the ultimate scale of justice. China sits with its Leviathan size army waiting for someone to slip. Western civilization (led by the US) needs the capability to instantly shift from Leviathan to SysAdmin in order to deal with either cultural contender.
Re: Partnering with China. Remember Maury’s adage that was drilled into us at Severn Tech, “When principal is involved, be deaf to expediency”
“Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”
The problem with Barnett’s logic is that he makes too many blythe assumptions about the way it really is in China and the way they think…..or the rest of Asia thinks. Now, I do understand his thoughts about NK-I’ve always wondered why the Chinese don’t play lets make a deal and trade NK for an accomodation on Taiwan. From a Chinese standpoint anything that gets US troops out of Asia is a plus for them and if Korea re-united the South would be so busy trying to fix the North- China would pass them buy. The truth is the only nation that wants a re-united Korea is the US. The South Koreans don’t want it and neither do the Chinese.
As for Taiwan- it may be true that its an obstacle in the way-but after watching what has happened in Hong Kong and how freedom is being slowly strangled there-over time-its a myth to assume that Taiwan will just go quietly into that good night. At least not until KMT comes back into power and can play some different cards.
The real issue that Barnett glosses over-to me, is the increasing inabilty of the US to influence the actions of the BRIC. They are going to go their own way and superpower or no, US actions will be increasingly irrelevant to them. Also Barnett cleverly ignores the fact that all four nations are quite happy to keep large percentages of their population as a permanent underclass-to keep their competitive advantge in labor costs. He offers no solution for that.
re- “Most people born after the 1960?
re- “Most people born after the 1960’s are not so imprinted”
I acknowledge that. And that is both a boon and a bane.
Boon = new way of seeing relationship country to country.
Bane= naieve and oblivious to the real threat to our existence posed today. Yes, if’n you youngsters fathers were in WWII or you had to hide under your desks at school when the siren was tested or have ever had the capability to carry nuclear weps in the aircraft you flew you’d know. By no means all of those under 50..those few of you (like ya lot of you here) who dug a little AFTER 9-11 and came to view the threat as REAL, are to be congratulated- you have escaped the liberal systems imprinting and actually used critical reasoning! BZ.
Back to the professor: Overall, when it comes to the Pacific Rim stuff China, N. Korea, Taiwan, he is compelling, although I don’t always agree. Of course, they are easier to understand being rational (exempting N.K.) and somewhat predictable (they act in their own interests first) from a historical standpoint.
India? Heck he’s filling in a gap I don’t know much about. Economic ascendancy? Perhaps.
When it comes to the M.E. he’s wrong on lots of levels. Doesn’t see the historical aspect. Seems to think we are dealing with rational folks. Little grasp of assymetric warfare.
b2
Hullo Lex,
Sorry to come to this discussion late – grading papers, doing academic admin (and what is the difference between an animal with a leg in a trap and a prof tasked with academic admin – the animal has an easy way out by chewing its own leg off), watching my 3 girls dance and frolic, etc.
One side note to this post – I’m not so sure you are entirely correct that “most people born after 1960″ were not so imprinted by the Cold War. There are a good many of us born in the mid 60s who remember the last phase of the Cold War when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, shot down KAL 007 and tried to kill a Pope, all the while facing the fierce anger and strategic acumen of Saint Ron the Great. For many of us, the last phase of the CW was exiting enough, and even more since every leftie in high school and college was telling us that the Communism and socialism was a sure thing and Gorby was a great man, etc. and then, oops! down went the east bloc with a crash. Admittedly not everyone in their teens was a political junkie in the 80s, but they were exciting times even for us pups and they did make an impression.
Take care and it is nice to get a chance to drop in again.
Sincerely,
David Curp
Good hearing from you David, and I know what you mean about the academic grind (although in this case I’m on the other side of the production chain – that thesis is not writing itself).
A good point you make about those who grew up in the late 60′s and were politically aware – I think Barnett’s point was to try to shift those of us in the audience – old gaspers, by and large – from preconceived positions, to try and imagine a reality in which China was not a part of the Communist Menace.
Dunno how successful he was…