Soviet Communism was, in the main, an enemy that represented a centripetal force in world affairs for America. Borders between the Soviet bloc and the West were as stark as the phrase ” Iron Curtain” that described them and as menacing as North Korea’s disconnected Stalinist regime remains today. The self-imposed isolation of the Soviets inadvertantly helped America’s ” hold that line” strategy succeed. The end of the USSR and Communism was a great triumph but the high tension of the nuclear stalemate of the Cold War also had acted as a a terrific extrinsic pressure on the behavior of all other states. Actions were measured in terms of the likelihood of a superpower response and the potential dangers of an escalation to nuclear war.
It is no accident that when the Soviets were on their last legs in 1990 Saddam felt safe enough to launch a war of conquest. Minor powers could now, freed from superpower tutelage, become players in their own right again. The collapse of Commnism had reversed the strategic paradigm – the world was now buffeted by centrifugal forces of nationalism and terrorism that caused multinational states to discorporate even as globalization began to re-connect the pieces along economic lines. Many states that had recently been dismissed as autocratic” developing countries” but had adapted early to the reset Rule-set of Globalization suddenly were revealed to be liberalizing ” tigers “. The world had been turned upside down.
End Part II.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Anonymous:
January 22nd, 2005 at 7:53 pm
just a general comment on PNM and connectivity:
I guess I still haven’t bought into the general concept that Barnett puts forth. While I applaud Bush’s attempt to bring democracy to the ME (since the alternative, see below, is horrible), I think it has little chance of succeeding. We cannot provide them with something that they don’t want. The forces for change must come from within. We’d be much better off providing seed money to endogenous groups that are liberal minded and letting it take it’s course. Yes that would take decades that we don’t have…well we screwed up. The current violence we are experiencing is a reaction to “connectivity.” The more connected bin Laden’s ilk is to the West, the more violent they become. Being a conservative, it makes much more sense to me to follow a fortress America policy. It is easier to make it clear that any attack on the U.S. will have horrendous consequences than to try and “convert” them to liberal minded westerners. Yes it would be great to have greater business contacts and foster economic development in the region. The problem, however, is that that inevitably means exposing them to even more western culture…which leads to more violence. We can’t decide the future of their culture, they have to.
Barnabus
mark:
January 23rd, 2005 at 12:36 am
Hi Barnabus
You wrote:
“The current violence we are experiencing is a reaction to “connectivity.” The more connected bin Laden’s ilk is to the West, the more violent they become. Being a conservative, it makes much more sense to me to follow a fortress America policy.”
Unfortunately, while I agree with you that Islamism is in part radicalizing in reaction to connectivity I don’t think fortress America has been a viable option for many decades and even less so now.
Muslim migration to Europe is too high to allow Islamism to grow unchecked as an ideology. India, China, Russia, Central Asia, parts of SEA, Africa and Indonesia could also be severely disrupted politically and economically.
The U.S. economy cannot weather that kind of shock and frankly, there’s no reason why we should meekly turn over a wide swath of the earth to a murderous gang of religious lunatics even if we could somehow turn back the clock.
Dan tdaxp:
January 24th, 2005 at 2:03 am
(If this comment is posted more than once I apologize.)
Fortress America may not be a viable option, but Fortress Core is. Dr. Barnett identifies four important flows as (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives/000032.html)
People from the Gap to the Core
Energry from the Gap to the New Core
Investment from the Old Core to the New Core
Security from the Core to the Gap
Imagine a world where we decide to fireall off the Core from the Gap, to ride out Islamism. Seam states with small or no Muslim minorities (say, Thailand) join the Core, while Muslim seam states join their brothers in the Gap. While some of these flows would be reduced, the resulting world would still be a Future Worth Living (at least for the Core)
There would be less people, but Japan has proven that a capital-heavy labor-light economy as possible. Growth would be slower in the Core, but the average wage would be higher (at least in the short term). Energy and Security would still flow, must as it does now. We get dictators’ oil, we tople a stupid regime once in a while, life goes on. Investment flows in the Core unimpeeded.
I fear that it would not be too hard for European leadership to expel Muslim immigrants, if it decides to do so. Immigration is unpopular with the people, and European states have grown accustomed to a top-down decision making style. The choise is European leaders’ to make.
It is not that this world is “impossible.” It is that it is undesirable. It is better to take big deficits now, and more terror attacks now, and a lower average wage now, in exchange for higher growth, a safer world, and a better future long term. I do not know how the American public would decide the issure if it was clearly presented to them. I hope they would support ending world poverty and a better world tomorrow. They have not always been so wise.
cash at home:
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:13 am
This is an outstanding blog here! I really enjoyed the topic you chose to write about. I’m definitely going to bookmark you! I have a work at home business idea site. It pretty much covers work at home business idea related stuff. Come and check it out if you get time 🙂