April 25, 2005
Asia by Barnett
Earlier, when analyzing the comments Democratic Underground and Free Republic, I noted a left-right divide in the United States. American politics can also be divided into two left-right divides: globalization and women. It is also too simplistic, but cutting politics like this can be a useful tool.
The Global War on Terrorism may one day be called the Globalization War, or even the Second Globalization War if Britain's early efforts are recognized. In mainstream American politics, this spectrum runs from the far left (those opposed to free trade and the wars used to defend the globalization system) to the far right (those who support free trade and the free trade system).
Examples of these politicians are
Thomas Patrick Meussling Barnett is a former Professor at the Naval War College, has worked with the Center for Naval Warfare Studies, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, and the Office of Force Transformation. Politically, he is close to Hillary Clinton on globalization -- mainstream Right. He runs a popular weblog, and this thoughts are....
Good news finally on the Chinese leadership front. When Jiang Zemin gave up his control over the military yesterday, the 3rd generation of leadership truly left the stage. Now, Hu Jintao has more control at an earlier age than any leader since Mao, which suggests that the 4th generation's run of leadership will be a vigorous one.
What this tells me is that America has it within its power to enlist China's support for Kim's removal from power, but that we're not signaling in the right way to make clear to China what benefits would accrue to it for this major effort on their part. And that's because we're of two minds on China, and that's too bad, because absent these sorts of Cold War leftovers (Taiwan defense guarantee, North Korea), there isn't much to divide us. China wants our ways, our advice, our progress.
China builds a military that's clearly designed to counter our ability to do whatever we damn well please in Asia. Hard to believe, isn't it? Doesn't being the world's Leviathan mean we get to have everyone unable to stand up to us no matter what we do or where we do it? No, it just means it's impossible to wage war successfully unless the U.S. agrees to that proposition. That's real power all right, it's just not unlimited with regard to our own desires. Being Leviathan doesn't mean you're God, just that you can prevent anyone else from assuming that role on anything significant.
The Communist Party is gearing up for its annual session of the National People's Congress in the Great Hall of the Peoples in Beijing. Everyone on our end is concerned about the likely passage of the "antisecession" law, but the real topic of the congress will be making sure the rural poor don't fall too far behind. This is a big topic of PNM-II [Banett's upcoming book, now called Blueprint for Action], and it should remind us that the Gap is all around us here in the Core, in pockets in the Old Core but in big swaths in the New Core. It reminds us that the Core can't move ahead without bringing the Gap along. This isn't neoimperialism or any of that other quasi-Marxist nonsense. This is the reality that the Core needs the Gap to get better if the Core is going to remain the Core. China is that microcosm of the whole, as is India.
Truth be told, I consider myself the ultimate realist on China’s future. I just define my realism in terms of economics, not ideology or the fanciful notion that national power is only truly expressed through military means. I believe China is “rising,” and that it will be our “near-peer” along a wide variety of diplomatic, economic, and social means not in some distant future, but over the next ten years. I believe we are woefully unprepared for this development, allowing China’s myopic security fixation on Taiwan to blind our vision regarding the true nature of their rising influence not just across Asia, where the vast sucking sound known as China’s demand for goods and raw materials is already reshaping the regional economy, but likewise across the planet, precisely because China is not just hell-bent on synchronizing its jumbled internal rule sets with that of globalization’s ever-more solid rule sets, but intends to forge more than a few global rule sets of its own—especially in the realm of technology standards.
Conclusion: Barnett, and by extension the mainstream American Right on globalization, believe
It's interesting to note where Barnett disagrees with the mainstream far left and the mainstream far right
Is this an accurate description of Barnett's views? Does Barnett represent a true mainstream Right in American politics? What are the hidden biases in his approach? What are my hidden biases in this article?
Those questions are left to the reader...posted by Dan tdaxp on 04.25.05 at 03:38 AM in the
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Send a manual trackback ping to this post.
4GPS1: Node Takedown and the Politics of Personal Destruction
Excerpt: "'Reactive' Politics," by Hunter, Daily Kos, 23 April 2005, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/23/231512/044. by Hunter Sat Apr 23rd, 2005 at 20:15:12 PDT Earlier I wrote about the 4GP: the four generations of modern politics or modern peace. 4...
Tracked: April 25, 2005 12:15 PM