Barnett sent the first draft of his book to his editor, and is back to spending his time reviewing the news. I will post them individually, so that you can skip the ones you find of little interest.
Working all the evil axes
¦"In China, an Unusual Level Of Criticism Toward an Ally," by Keith Bradsher and James Brooke, New York Times, 13 February 2005, p. A12.
¦"Rice Assures South Korean Of U.S. Pressure on North," by Joel Brinkley and James Brooke, New York Times, 15 February 2005, p. A6.
¦"Japan to Join U.S. Policy on Taiwan: Growth of China Seen Behind Shift," by Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, 18 February 2005, p. A1.
¦"U.S. Seems Sure of the Hand of Syria, Hinting at Penalties," by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 15 February 2005, p. A8.
¦"U.S. and U.N. Step Up Pressure on Damascus: Security Council Urges Troop Withdrawal," by Robin Wright, Washington Post, 16 February 2005, p. A14.
¦"Iran Says Pilotless U.S. Jets Are Spying on Nuclear Sites," by Nazila Fathi, New York Times, 17 February 2005, p. A10.
¦"Bush Urges Diplomatic Solutions to Conflicts: President Stresses Desire to Work With Allies on Standoffs With Syria, Iran, N. Korea," by Peter Baker, Washington Post, 18 February 2005, p. A6.
I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve gotten about the Esquire piece where they tell me how crazy I am for thinking China will ever help us topple Kim Jong Il. But here is the Chinese media talking more critically than ever, and here is the Bush administration making no secret of its desire to recruit Beijing’s help. Key pen names being used to signal official intent, but China stops short of supporting regime change strategies like dropping radios or “other steps to help the country’s residents realize how poor and isolate they are.”
A war of connectivity? Too bad that the poor and malnutritioned rural poor have watched their height and IQ levels drop for years on end (I’m not kidding). When you starve an entire generation like that, you weaken them from within. To expect radios to do the trick alone asks too much. This is a real totalitarian state, with a truly infantilized population as a result. We’re talking the 70-pound 14-year-old who’s been locked in the closet for 8 years. It’s that sick and that real.
It’s not a choice between war and regime change. People may think that avoiding the war avoids the peacekeeping and nation-building, but all that strategy gets you is more suffering in the meantime. Are we waiting for that 70-pound 14-year-old to somehow grow into an adult who can stand up for himself? When they never get out of the closet?
Everyone knows, as the second article points out, “that China is the only nation with leverage on North Korea.” Why? It’s the only one that has both carrots and sticks and it willing to use both, as one analyst points out.
So why do we encourage Japan to simultaneously stand up to China over Taiwan? Where are we going with that one? Should we be surprised that most Chinese believe their government should side with North Korea so long as both countries see the U.S. as a common enemy?
We need to get something more out of Kim’s fall than just Kim’s fall, or even Korean reunification. We need a huge payoff from something of that effort, and that payoff is a security relationship with China that rules out war over Taiwan or anything else. Ask yourself if ultimately this isn’t something we’re going to want to have and need to have, and if that is the case, then real strategic vision is always on the lookout for making that happen.
North Korea is staring us in the face as an opportunity.
Over to the Middle East, we’re now fixating on Syria as a big problem, but Syria is more symptom than source. We fix Iran and we fix Syria and Lebanon to boot. Fixing Iran isn’t an invasion or an occupation. That is the only way to actually lose that society, which is already on our side. Nowhere near a totalitarian state, so you kill it with connectivity. No need to fly in radios to clue the population in. They almost revolted outright soon after Saddam’s fall.
But no, we can’t negotiate with a state that sponsors terrorism! I get a lot of those emails.
Yet somehow we did just that with the USSR for years on end, and frankly, as a student of Soviet support for terrorism around the world, there is simply no comparing the two. The Sovs were global and deep in their support. Iran is minor league in comparison. But with the Sovs we saw something larger at stake (peace in Europe), so we dealt and did the regime in with connectivity. How much has our isolation weakened the mullahs so far in Iran? Ready for something else?
Bush says he wants “diplomatic solutions,” but too often that just means “our way” with no threat of “highway,” and that won’t work. Deal the war or deal the peace.
Look ahead and ask yourself: Do you see North Korea in the future? If not, then the question is time, not “if.”
But also ask yourself: Do you see Iran not being a key player in the Middle East? Not being Shiite? Not having mullahs? We’re not changing those realities, but steering them down different pathways. The real question is, How to marginalize the mullahs politically?
Certainly not by trying the same isolating shtick that’s kept Castro in power in Cuba all these years.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett |
