The Middle East: a time for real imagination
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 11:23 AM
¦"A Political Arabesque: The way to reform in the Middle East is not a straight line," op-ed by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 19 Dedember 2004, p. WK11.
¦"A Modest Proposal: Israel Joining NATO," by Steven Erlanger, New York Times, 19 Dedember 2004, p. WK6.
¦"Sizing Up The New Toned-Down Bin Laden: He is acting like an elder statesman from a borderless Muslim nation," by Don Van Natta, Jr., New York Times, 19 Deeember 2004, p. WK1.
Even Tom Friedman now sees hope on Middle Eastern piece, if only the U.S. is imaginative in how it approaches Arab states and Iran. Iran, of course, is not Arab but Persian, which is why Friedman says not to worry so much about Iran ruling over the Arab Shiites in Iraq. Sure, Iran can ruin the prospect of peace there, but it can't exactly determine the nature of peace there either. It needs help to make that work, just like we do.
Again, like me, Friedman is asking, Is this administration imaginative enough to see the potential here? I know Friedman will probably freak when he reads my Esquire piece in January, as he won't know what to make of it any more than he does of PNM, which, according to mutual acquaintances, he has read but declines to comment upon. Then again, he writes for the careful Times, whereas I write for Esquire and Putnam, so I can afford to take more risks.
But taking risks is the name of the game right now in the Middle East. Osama's taking risks right and left by trying to appear more statesman like, and even cracking jokes about not choosing to attack that bastion of personal freedom (and licentiousness?): Sweden! What does that tell us about Osama right now? He's not winning, and so he's adjusting to what he hopes will be negotiations with . . . somebody . . . please!
But who can Osama count on nowadays? Who is the big power that will stand up to the U.S. when all of those big powers seem to be coming together ever more intensely in a global economy?
So it's a time of desperate moves and imaginative proposals, like admitting Israel to NATO. Why?
I dunno. Maybe Israel will need some systematic backing once Iran has the bomb—Iran, the same country that's just signed huge energy deals with rising eastern powers India and China. Maybe some balancing will be in order.
Maybe even a grand bargain of sorts.
Again, it's all about imagination. Anyone can write policy pieces about what's feasible in this current climate. You know those pieces—boring as all hell get out.
But where to find the real strategy?
Hmmm, I'm betting on the Feb issue of Esquire!
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 11:24 AM
2004: the year of China
¦"Who's Afraid of China? How Dell Became the World's Most Efficient Computer Maker," by Gary Rivlin, New York Times, 19 December 2004, p. BU1.
¦"Whoops! It's 1985 All Over Again: Fat Deficits. Dollar Woes. Asia Rising. Calling James Baker?" by Eduardo Porter, New York Times, 19 December 2004, p. BU1.
¦"The Dollar? China Gets A Big Vote," by Jonathan Fuerbringer, New York Times, 19 December 2004, p. BU9.
These three articles are all the usual stuff. My point in citing them is that, here it is, the second to last weekend of the year, and on the subject of globalization there is one clear dominating topic: China.
China is the big competitive threat. China holds many of the cards regarding the future flight of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. China needs to be at all the negotiating tables.
Oh yeah, and when the world really needs a serious fix-it man . . . call James Baker—our last good secretary of state.
Hmm, I gotta work that into an article sometime . . ..
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 11:24 AM
The Leviathan-SysAdmin divide: unclear rule sets
¦"Pentagon Seeks To Expand Role in Intelligence: Traditional C.I.A. Tasks; Proposal Is Taking Shape as Nation Overhauls Its Spy Operations," by Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 19 December 2004, p. A1.
¦"Under Siege in Afghanistan, Aid Groups Say Their Effort Is Being Criticized Unfairly: Afghans say some aid workers appear to be living the high life," by Carlotta Gall and Amy Waldman, New York Times, 19 December 2004, p. A8.
The Pentagon is exploring the messing seam between war and peace, because that's where much of this Global War on Terrorism will be fought, and those serial assassinations will be conducted by the Leviathan's road team, Special Operations Command. These trigger pullers don't have an off-season, because they never leave the playing field. They're there when the Leviathan force pulls into town and they remain when the Leviathan force pulls up stakes.
And they need intelligence.
And if that need means the Pentagon starts acting more like the CIA in obtaining it, well, this is just another blurring of the line between war and peace, or between Leviathan and SysAdmin functions.
The SysAdmin forces will never engage in the sort of serial assassinations that the flies-on-the-eyeballs guys do, because that force can never be tainted by such activity. The SysAdmin's killers will be the Marines, who, with their worldwide reputation for both fierceness and discipline, are the perfect face to put forward in terms of that force's muscle.
Yes, I know, there are plenty of aid groups that don't want to be associated with the U.S. military, but if they're going to have any lasting positive impact in postconflict stabilization ops like Afghanistan, both we the military and they the private aid groups are going to have to forge a new set of understandings and relationships. We need to become the cop and the social worker who walk the same beats.
And another thing: the aid crowd has to start being more cognizant of how they come off to the locals, who often grow angry with the U.S. military but never accuse them of living "high on the hog" as aid workers are consistently accused.
As one aid group director admitted, "A lot of agencies are only here for the money."
The solution? Regularize and codify the process. Separate the good groups from the bad, and get clear lines of demarcation between groups and the military, even as the two sides need to work increasingly together. Systematize it, for crying out loud. Administer it in a comprehensive fashion.
Yeah, that's the ticket . . . system administration!
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 11:24 AM
The multi-kulti debate in Europe
¦"A Runaway Personifies Germany's 'Multi-Kulti' Debate: A teenager's plight reflects a deeper issue of a cultural divide," by Richard Bernstein, New York Times, 19 December 2004, p. A6.
The story tells you once again that this so-called "clash of civilizations" is really mostly a "clash of gender issues": the runaway in question is an 18-year-old daughter of Turkish immigrants in Germany, who ran off rather than be "sold" into marriage to a man she had never met ("I never even saw a picture."):
Women like Jasmin are prime evidence for people in Germany who argue that the influx of Muslims is a threat to the country's social cohesion, and that stronger measures are needed to stop practices like forced marriages.
They are part of a broader current of opinion in this country, jolted into action by the recent murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. This view repudiates "multi-kulti," as multiculturalism is called here, the notion that Germany needs to become culturally more diverse.
This antagonism formed the main theme of a recent congress of Germany's main conservative parties, which issued a platform called "In Germany's Interest: Encouraging Integration, Fighting Islamism." It called for unspecified sanctions against foreigners who refused to accept Germany's democratic values, and recommended new restrictions on immigration.
But there are many other people who argue that cases like Jasmin's are unusual, and, because they are sensational, can be used for political purposes, to darken the image of the Turkish community. In reality, they say, the Turks are changing and adapting to German ways more or less the way other immigrant groups have in other countries.
"Integration takes a long time," said Barbara Joh, the former commissioner for foreign affairs in Berlin, who once protected Muslim girls against what most Germans would regard as unfair practices. "The Muslims themselves are in a confrontation, and we have to help them," she said. "But we are not doing that if we are drawing the line between the Muslims and ourselves, rather than between the fanatics and the nonfanatics."
Jasmin's take on the whole matter: "The attitude of families is that a girl from Turkey will be innocent and pure and will just stay at home and have babies."
Why didn't she? She figured out the law and realized that her real prize was a German passport and residency. She realized she was being sold for that and she rebelled.
That's your "clash of civilizations." Not some grand military struggle between tectonic forces, but a melodrama played out in living rooms. |
