On Taiwan, Everything Old is New Again
thomaspmbarnett.com
¦"60 Years Later, China Enemies End Their War: TV Handshake Aimed at Taiwan Separatists," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 30 April 2005, p. A1.
"China Tries to Isolate Taiwan's President," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 26 April 2005, p. A6.
"Nationalist Chairman's Visit to Mainland Spurs Taiwanese Interest in Accords," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 1 May 2005, p. A17.
"Taiwan Communication Plan Stirs New Hopes for a Thaw," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 2 May 2005, off web.
Isn't it amazing how every time there's an alleged close call on conflict between China and Taiwan, if you actually follow the story long-term, each such plus-up in tension inevitably triggers a new and deeper accommodation.
It happens again this time.
The close-call on the December 04 elections (would Chen Shubai's party win a majority in the Taiwanese parliament and then do something stupid, like a meaningless name change, to trigger a military crisis with China?) now segues into a clever, divide-and-conquer strategy by Beijing to highlight the reality that a slim majority-at best-supports Chen's party, but when the question isn't "Do you want Taiwan to assert its independence?" but rather "Do you want to do something that puts at risk the rising economic connectivity between Taiwan and the mainland?" it's really a strong majority that prefers that economic vision of a joint future worth creating.
So China's hosting opposition party leaders, including the head of the legacy party of the Kuomintang once headed by Chiang Kaishek, the Jefferson Davis of the Chinese civil war after World War II. So this guy showing up and shaking hands in Beijing is a big deal, reminding the world how far the two sides have come from that conflict.
This is not a story about communists vs. democrats, but a story of two Chinas: one far farther ahead in democracy than the other, but both moving in the same Core-integrating direction.
China's leadership not looking so crude in their diplomacy right now, is it?
In a Shocking Move, Friedman's New Book Declared "Brilliant" by New York Times!
¦"The Wealth of Yet More Nations," book review ofThe World is Flat (Thomas L. Friedman) by Fareed Zakaria, New York Times Book Review, 1 May 2005, p. 10.
I honestly believe that Tom Friedman, as brilliant as he is, couldn't get an honest review in the Times if he wanted. Simply too valuable a product.
Fareed's review (schoolmate from Harvard) is a good one, but it has that scratch-my-back-next-please feel to it. All the journalist/strategists of the world unite!
But Zakaria's biggest point is a huge one: Friedman's now back to "tech rules all," and has abandoned a sense of what we, in my business, call the "pol-mil" (my wife, for years, thought I worked for a guy called Paul Mill, because I kept babbling on about "him" at the dinner table every night). Pol-mil refers to political-military, and it's a term of art to remind the economic world that security is the "everything else" they (the business types) tend to forget, just like the Pentagon tends to ignore the "everything else" beyond war.
So Friedman, who wrote the classic economic determinist track of globalization (Lexus and Olive Tree), then dived into pol-mil with Longitudes and Attitudes, now has gone back to his first love. I say Friedman's like Meg Ryan after one of her "serious" films: she always found the audience didn't believe her in those roles, so she tended to follow them up with a classic romantic comedy (paging Tom Hanks!). I think Friedman felt like a fish out of water on pol-mil, so he's returned to his "romantic comedy," which is economic determinism. Hence his three-year Rip Van Winkle excuse of now finally acknowledging the rise of India and China (World is Flat).
But what I wait for is the honest review that says, "Come on, Tom, how can you pass that off as new analysis after the Times and Journal have been running those stories for . . . oh . . . about two years now!
That, plus the whole "flat" thing seems terribly old in a world where things move fast. Friedman's column had said he was writing on a book of geo-politics, but alas, he's written just a book on geo-economics, so back to the cheerleading role.
Is he a brilliant describer of new economic and technological trends? Absolutely. But pretending that you can figure out the future of the world by quoting the Bill Gateses of the world is a bit myopic. Sure, you could push that stuff before 9/11, but not after.
Plus, Friedman disappoints me terribly with the underlying message of this book: don't obsess with threat of terrorism, instead obsess with the economic threat of India and China!
Come on! Is that the only way to get attention nowadays? Swapping security fears for economic ones? This is geo-strategic?
As the GWOT Turns . . .
¦"The Way of Commandos: Is the War Getting Dirtier?," by Peter Maass, New York Times Magazine, 1 May 2005, p. 38.
"Last Syrian Force Leaves Lebanon: Beirut Is Still Mired Deep in Political Uncertainty," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 27 April 2005, p. A1.
"U.S. Sees Drop in Terrorist Threats: Al Qaeda Focusing Attacks in Iraq and Europe, Officials Say," by Dana Priest and Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, 1 May 2005, p. A1.
"U.S. Recruits A Rough Ally To Be a Jailer," by Don Van Natta Jr., New York Times, 1 May 2005, p. A1.
A quick turn of the dial on the GWOT, starting with good story from Peter Maass in NYT mag on Iraq's situation, suggesting that it's going down the path of El Salvador, defined as hit squads fielded by government tracking down and fighting insurgents. Story focuses on scary former Baathist security guy (Sunni) who was sentenced to death by Hussein for trying to overthrow him, now is put in charge of defeating the insurgency by the successor government. He's got a shadowy American special ops guy advising him who cut his teeth in El Salvador in the 1980s. So the question is, does Iraq go down the path of never-ending death squads on boths sides (the insurgency's already got theirs, so it's a matter of fighting fire with fire).
Scary to read? Sure, but a realistic perspective. Many scores to settle, and the assassinations will go on for years. Famous old Polish film "Ashes and Diamonds" just out on DVD. It explores the postwar situation in Poland right after WWII, and it's instructive, because the story follows two professional assassins who used to kill Nazis and now kill communists. They know they won't win, but it's all they know, so they keep killing until they themselves go down. There will be plenty of "ashes and diamonds" in Iraq for many years. No matter how well we did this Big Bang, that would have happened. But how we deal with it is crucial. Some of this boys-will-be-boys stuff we can't stop, but we can work hard to prevent this from devolving into an endless cycle.
Elsewhere in the Big Bang, Syria is gone from Lebanon. I feel like I've been asleep for three years and I just woke up to a new world!
No, wait a minute, that would be Tom Friedman.
I've only been lost to writing for about 4 months, so while I'm thrilled to see this development (one predicted by no Middle East experts as possibly resulting from Big Bang, mind you), it just pushes Lebanon into a new realm, one that suggests that the U.S. will have to find a lot of compromises with Shiite populations in the region. Remember, Hezbollah is now the long pole in Beirut's tent. That means connectivity to the new Shiite-dominated Iraq and-of course-Tehran.
Post article confirms an argument I've offered for a couple of years now in the brief: following 9/11 we go on the offensive and that means "global terrorism" is now back to its regional reach pattern of the 1970s and 1980s, meaning they can blow stuff up at will in the Middle East (great) and they can reach into southern Europe (think Madrid 3/11/04) and Russia (think of the connectivity to the Chechen conflict and the attacks like Beslan).
Point being: our Global War on Terror (GWOT) means allies in Europe will catch most of the direct blowback, while we're back to being fundamentally safer and out of the fire zone. Something to remember.
Finally, remembering my Wired story and my proposal for a Switzerland-like supermax for terrorists picked up-hopefully-by a Core-wide World Counter-Terrorism Organization. Story is about how U.S. has sort of done just that with Uzbekistan, not exactly the pick of the litter, and not even a step up (particularly) from either Abu Ghraib or "Gitmo" in Cuba.
My point: when Core doesn't positively define the new rule set, a bad definition inevitably emerges by default. So inaction and lack of ambition and vision costs. You won't be happy with the default pathway, which will prove to be just as pathway dependent as any other. |
