Scanning some of the articles I've pulled in last few days:
thomaspmbarnett.com
The biggie was the WSJ front-pager sounding the alarm on "China Flexes Economic Muscle Throughout Burgeoning Africa: Beijing Forges Deep Alliances With War-Torn Nations, Countering U.S. Influence" (by Karby Leggett (if that's his or her real name!), 29 Mar, p. A1). Bit much in this "breaking story" that's been going on for . . . I dunno . . . about half-a-decade or more. The scary tone comes off as a ways hyperbolic. Like we're "losing Africa" or something! My God! We want nothing to do with the place and never have! Big deal if China's engaging in aid and investment there: are we suddenly against that?
Ah, but the Chinese tend to favor rancid dictatorships that make the energy and other resources flow steadily. We've never done anything like that, have we?
Ah, but the Chinese use their aid and investments to curry favor with the governments regarding their pet diplomatic causes, like non-recognition of Taiwan. Again, I'd hate to cast the first stone on that one.
Ah, but the Chinese stop us from doing anything in Sudan!
Ah, but I guess we'd actually have to want to do something there for that to matter.
So the Chinese look for opportunities wherever the Americans and the West in general tend to express little interest. Hmmm. That is odd. I mean, why wouldn't they concentrate on countries that already have a huge Western presence?
Ed Royce, the CA congressman I met a while back at dinner is quoted in the article as citing China's growing influence on the continent as a "concern," but why is that, exactly? I mean, we tend to ignore Africa, so why is it bad if somebody else doesn't? Or is it supposed to stay ignored when we ignore it? Or are we the only ones who can do good things there, like build roads or invest in infrastructure?
Africa is a place with the U.S. and China could logically locate a lot of common strategic interests, or a lot of mutually exclusive antagonisms. I guess I just wonder why the bias is always toward the latter, as if that is the extent of our strategic imagination on the subject. Or can we do better?
Another scary story on Japan and China conflicting over energy in the South China Sea ("Drawing the Line on Energy," by James Brooke, NYT, 29 Mar, p. C1). This macho posturing on both sides is too stupid for words, because China without access to reasonably priced energy means Japan will suffer economically in a big way, and ditto the other way around, so what exactly are they going to fight over? The right to see one economy tank on lack of energy so that the other can lose it's most important long-term trade/investment engine? The answer on this one is such a no-brainer: Chinese muscle and Japanese money = development of cheaper energy they both share. The two countries will reach this understanding eventually, but watch stupid politicians on both sides make a lot of dumb moves and say a lot of dumb things before logic prevails.
Cool story ("Brazil: Free Software's Biggest and Best Friend," by Todd Benson, NYT, 29 Mar, p. C1) on Brazil's efforts to keep redefining itself as not just a "body" nation (commodities producer) but a "head" nation (high-tech/content-oriented) as well. Watching them connect up average citizens in innovative ways is really cool. Brazilians are a huge chunk of the second billion on the web, according to Ethan Zuckerman of Harvard.
Lest we forget India ("India's Ties With Iran Pose Challenge for U.S.," by John Larkin and Jay Solomon, WSJ, 25 March, p. A7), we are reminded that China isn't the only energy-hungry, influence-peddling rising New Core state that bears watching. Isn't it weird how, the more India and China behave like us in global markets, the more we distrust them?
Best article on Kyrgyzstan's quick-and-clean revolution is by stalwart Steven Lee Myers of NYT ("Contagion: Popular Risings in Ex-Soviet Zone," 25 March, p. A8). Real strategic point of Georgia, Ukraine and now Kyrgyzstan: the signals sent to Putin regarding the 2008 election. Screw the "whole world," your people will be watching! And they're proving to be enough in places like Georgia, Ukraine and now Kyrgyzstan. That's the lesson for Putin: stick to the high road or watch it happen to you!
Three quickies from today's Post online:
?"In Zimbabwe, Withholding of Food Magnifies the Hunger for Change," by Craig Timberg, p. A1.
Nice story. Here's the opening two paras:
Hundreds of bags of cornmeal were stacked in front of a bar near here this month, rising as high as its roof. The only problem for the hungry people of this drought-stricken area was that the food, like the bar, was controlled by officials from the ruling party. With a crucial election nearing, they weren't about to give it to just anyone.
The officials first held a rally by their impressive mound of food, witnesses here said. The next day, as hundreds of people from surrounding villages gathered to collect the 110-pound bags they had ordered and paid for months before, ruling party officials announced that only their supporters were eligible. When the names of opposition voters were called, they were simply handed back their money, according to several people who were turned away. The leftover bags went on sale hours later for twice the price.
Now, there's something on which to cooperate with China in Africa.
?"Syria: Troop Pullout To Precede Elections: Lebanese Premier to Step Down Again," by Colum Lynch and Scott Wilson, p. A10.
Opening sentence is all you want to hear: "Syria's government told the United Nations on Tuesday that it would withdraw all of its troops from Lebanon before Lebanese parliamentary elections this spring."
Gotta like that, but it means we're getting into bed with more Shiites (Hezbollah) if we want success to follow.
?"Rumsfeld And the Generals," op-ed by David Ignatius, p. A15.
Not that I'd ever say anything bad about David Ignatius, but my sense of the dynamics in the Pentagon is not that a new Chairman needs to be able to stand up to Rumsfeld, but that Rumsfeld finally needs to get his own chairman.
According to people I speak with, Ignatius is right about Pace (current Vice, USMC Gen.) and Giambastiani (JFCOM boss and USN Adm) being the front runners. Most likely scenarios are: 1) Pace moves up for 2 years, with G. as his Vice, then G. takes over for his four-year stint, or 2) G. goes straight to Chair and Pace remains his Vice for two more years. Many think Pace is in slight lead, but others tell me the service clock on Giambastiani's career means he either goes this summer to Chief or not at all. Something about his being trapped by 35-year-mark in Vice's job (a technicality that apparently doesn't apply in same way to Chief's spot). I'm not too clear on such details, but my guess is that Adm. G. is the man. He was Rumsfeld's mil aide and then the guy he trusted with Transformation's main command. I think this one's in the bank, and such an outcome would be good for the Pentagon and DoD as a whole, methinks. |
