Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Excellent Column, that shines a spotlight on the path that America seems to have chosen.
You asked how can America grow so disconnected and uncomfortable in this world we've created. One only has to look at anyone who has grown up for a half century being told that they are the brightest, richest, and strongest on earth. This has resulted in America becoming the Paris Hilton of nations, believing that it is entitled on acount of their birthright, to be above the rest.
I love this nation, I have fought for it and believe in it's role as a leader of nations. The responsibilites of leadership require dialogue, not constant dictation in order to retain followers.

As much as I despise what the Democrats stand for domestically, on foreign policy, only Obama sounds like he has a clue. Sure, his stuff sounds like "misteps" to an untrained ear, but he's definitely talking about a more positive vision for America's foreign policy and that's something worth listening to

At least Obama let the cat out of the bag. We need dialog, America cant be a one man show.

Obama is a lightweight, and is in no way qualified to be POTUS, let alone a Senator. The idea of attacking one's allies, while appeasing one's enemies will accomplish anything is naive. Mitt Romney said it best: "He's gone from Jane Fonda, to Dr. Strangelove in one week." Yes the US does indeed need to engage moderate Muslim nations, as well as European critics.

In my view Mitt Romney has laid out the best way forward in that respect (and yes I'm a Romney supporter). He understands globalization, and has the business expertise to keep the US competitve with Asia, particularly in respect to China and India.

Nov. 2005:
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's Message: Globalize or Die
"I'm not happy exporting jobs but we must move ahead in technology and patents. I don't like losing any jobs but we'll see new opportunities created selling products there. We'll have a net net increase in economic activity, just as we did with free trade," Romney said. "It's tempting to want to protect our markets and stay closed. But at some point it all comes crashing down and you're hopelessly left behind. Then you are Russia."

"Romney said the United States should be investing heavily in technology because it will help fuel continued economic growth over the next century. If US businesses fail to do this, he said, it will lose its leadership position to emerging economies.

"China and India have huge populations. There's no reason why they can't emerge as an economic and military superpower in 100 years," the governor said. "We need to be at the leading edge of technology. "

"We know this market but when our market is no longer the target market in the world, when India and China surpass us, the idea that we'll be innovating and they'll be copying is not an accurate perception," the governor added. "

"In a global economy modeled on our pioneering political.... why we
have isolated ourselves? " this is a great question that goes somewhat to the heart of the problem.if you look at british empire at
the end of world war 2, they had to make a choice either to become
a facist state internaly or give up the empire,they did. today america
is faced with the same question. the founding fathers,or at least
john j,alexander hamilton, and the main brain james madison,were
honest or frank in what they believed,and when madison wrote the
letter to both john j,and hamilton,about his idea of the consitution,
which basicaly was infulenced alot by john lock(which is another subject).but since 1973,starting with reagan,we see alots of the rights the people had and fought for under constuition changed or
ignored,and now we see more and more under bush & cheny the
democracy internaly are being taken back,but not,in a open manner
that were given by founding fathers.instead by lies and under the
pretext of democracy,terror thret and so on,in pursue of the empire.
that is why people around the world friend or no friend don't believe
the bush(and the neocons) democracy,even the suadis don't(the rice
and sec defence recent trip).

Briefly, the problem with Obama is not recommending that we engage China (I see little evidence that we are not doing so) or our traditional allies in Europe or nations we want to court as new allies (the Administration has done a good job of developing relations with India, for example). Rather, he is being excoriated for suggesting that we treat our avowed adversaries as being like any other state.

Are we to equate the leaders of Iran with those in Beijing? Or Delhi? Or Paris? One would hope not. Iran is a revisionist state, one that certainly acts as if it is involved in a zero-sum game with the United States.

While China is not a "friend" (nor an outright enemy; let's just call them a competitor) of the United States, it certainly has a interest in maintaining a stable global system. Iran looks as if it thinks the current global order is the problem.

Senator Obama and other who want to blame the current state of relations solely on the US seem to be rather chauvinistic in their analysis. Other states have their own goals, other people their own prejudices, other cultures their own way of looking the world. Isn't it possible that other governments, other nations bear some of the responsibility for the current state of global relations? When China provides political cover for Sudan, when Russia threatens the population centers of Europe, when Tehran threatens to nuke Israel...is all of this solely the fault or, perhaps, responsibility of the United States?

It may be that we are entering, in this post-Cold War world, an era when tensions will be high and relations chaotic due to the rise of new centers of power and the growth of ideologies at odds with liberal, democratic, capitalism (e.g, autocratic capitalism, various flavors of Islam).

Certainly, we can repair some of our relations, particularly with Europe. There have been actions taken - whether one agrees with them or not - that have had direct, negative consequences in our relations with other Western states. But, there are some nations whose long-term goals will be incompatible with ours and some world-views that cannot coexist with ours.

One can retort that it does not hurt to talk to them (that is Iran, North Korea, etc) in a fashion the Senator recommends. However, that is an assumption, one not borne out by history. It actually has been harmful in some situations to talk rather than take more strenuous measures. It may give hostile states the impression that American is weak, that it values luxury above all, that it just needs to be pushed a little more and capitulation will follow (that is, a perception much like that before World War Two among the countries that would make up the Axis). Talking convinced Adolf Hitler in 1938 that the Allies were not a serious obstacle. Talks with Hanoi during Vietnam did not help our cause (unless providing the US with political cover for eventually abandoning Saigon to its fate is considered help). In Islamic history, talks and ceasefires are often just periods to recover and prepare for the next round of fighting. If nothing else - and as we have see with North Korea - talks can be drawn out by hostile powers to buy time.

Which is why the Senator's stipulation that he would deal with hostile regimes with no preconditions is a problem. Why shouldn't their be pre-conditions before we normalize relations with Iran? And, if he is not referring to normalization, than in what way is his recommendation any different than what the Administration has been doing, either through proxies or, recently, directly?

Let's say the Senator wants to "dialog" in some new way with Terhan. Well, Tehran has made it pretty clear they want us out of the region and they want to be recognized as the dominant power in the Middle East. Unless the Senator is willing to agree to that - something that I doubt - is that not a precondition?

In closing, we do need to rebuild some of our relations. This Administration has allowed its own prejudices and its penchant to "go it alone" to exacerbate tensions with other countries - I refer particularly to European states - and to be used by other governments in their own domestic political arenas (for example, the French government under Chirac didn't seem to have much of a problem using "unilateral force" where it wanted to...but they were able to use Iraq as a means of garnering support from those who dislike/feel threatened by/are envious of America). I have no argument with the sentiment that "America can't be a one man show."

At the same time, that does not mean we close our eyes to the reality that some countries, some ideologies, some cultures are never going to mesh with ours and the system we have set up. Talking to these entities may worsen the situation by emboldening them. Or, it simply may be a waste of time and resources best spent on repairing ties to other states where the effort can result in a positive outcome.

Just a few thoughts.

thanks for your comment, Jeff. but it's way too long. in the future, please keep your comments shorter, per the comment policy.