Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

in the sence that China should be an ally, we know the Bush agenda coming into office was exactly the opposite view toward China.in fact, the neocons had the short lived dream of imagining of becoming the super empire,and in order to control China,they had the middle east plan to control the flow of energy out of there in order to control China,and Europe.the so called long war against the
global jihadist movement,nothing but an excuse and lie. heck,if we were serious about that,we would have gone after the source where
wahabist and salahist are grown,in Suadi and Pakinstan,where they
are treated as allies.this double standards of Bush's admins toward
terrorists,democracy,WMD,Enviroment,and ...is main source why the
world feels justfuly,that e are against them.

America against the world, the paper asks.

Depends on the administration's foreign policy surely. But if there is no significant change, are there sizeable countries who would serve the US to maintain - and perhaps - enlarge its empire?

Certainly not countries in Western Europe - they are criticised for wanting to befriend Russia who may supply them with much of their energy in the future. Anyway the EU have their own enlargement thinking. NATO countries have also become less compliant with US wishes.

Possibly rising China and India - up and coming giants, with big militaries, who could also help the US pay for its policies.

On the other hand, would US foreign policy change if there was an effective United Nations?

If we view the African and Muslim parts of the Non-Integrating Gap to be analogous to the European and Pacific fronts of World War II, this article appears to be in favor of an "Africa First" strategy -- integrating Africa as more doable while waiting to integrate the Muslim world at some later time.

I think I agree. Whatever problems Africa has, it doesn't have the embedded, screwy, modern ideologies of National Secular Socialism and Islamism that are soo common in the Muslim world.

Dan goes to the head of the line.

Another brilliant article that sounds a message that speaks to the emerging leaders of this country. Forcasting the future is not the provience of a historian. But the analogous reference noted by dan tdaxp, and your reference to our nation's own frontier experience provide ample evidence.
Great Britian did hitch it's wagon to our rising star in the twentieth century. But, Churchill learned in the Tehran Conference in 1943 that Britian had been surplanted by two other powers. We can call on our best resource, the ability to improvise and adopt in order to be part of "shift happens"! Otherwise we will slowly decompose to a shadow of ourselves.

"the embedded, screwy, modern ideologies of National Secular Socialism and Islamism that are so common in the Muslim world" have been slowly creeping back into Africa. The PRC understands this fully and could care less. They want resources and are willing to pay sans the catches such as " only if you spend this on education and AIDS and this on women's rights" etc etc." We don't quite get it. We buy resources and demand how they spend the money. And we wonder why they would rather deal with PRC than the US ????? We are not slowing the flow of resources to PRC one bit. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves without a source. (Despite all this, most realize that we have more than enough fuel under our own soil for many many years).