Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Not to rain on your party, but "The Gap" of which you speak includes a large area which is a non-federated tribal region outside the rule of centralized government. The chest pounding probably does your own heart good, but I think the intricacies of what is the reality of Pakistan evades us somewhat.
Otherwise.... great oration, Mr. Barnett. smile

So what's the rule set involved when our European allies claimed they were uninformed about our tricky games that happened in or crossed their turf? Oh, I'm not cleared to know that rule set! ;-)

tammy: then don't pretend as Pakistan that it's part of your sovereign territory. if you can't police it, then it's not, and we'll feel free to intervene if necessary.

Sean: by that definition, which seems to expand on Tom's a little bit, what is the adequate density of policing, or ratio of police to citizens? One might say that Russia is squarely in the Gap, remains a source (and frequent overt driver) of Gap instability and intractability, and is basically dragging on the rest of the Old Core and New (developing) states. When do we intervene there, for the greater good of the Old and New Core states, the advancement on shrinking the Gap, and for the good of ethnic populations who just want and need help asserting their human rights? Sovereignty is only part of the problem...

Matthew: as you well know, i do not speak for Tom. my interpretation here is my own. you can make a slippery slope argument here for Russia, but that's a far cry from Tom's examples of Somalia and Pakistan.

Sean,
I think you are missing my point. Mr. Barnett sees individuals as units of labor, within a greater globalization scheme of things. I see things more in the microcosmic view as to the socio-anthropologic and historical factors which Mr. Barnett's statement does not address.

Intelligence is great. Wisdom resides on a different plane and examines and places all necessary components in their proper place in both ascendency of order and also symbiosis to the other parts. I believe Mr. Barnett addresses one aspect of the greater picture with his usual intelligence. Few of us, can grasp at the jewel of thought which is wisdom.

Regards,
Tammy

Sean, no offense was intended, and we know that you don't speak for Tom but rather to support him where you feel the need to do so. I think the rest of us who read this blog do so not only to be better informed, but also to support Tom and his ideas in general. Tom's examples are not the only possibilities, as we well know, but are certainly two of the clearest. In the case of Somalia, there's isn't even a government to notify, and in Pakistan the government is either hostile or very leaky in such a case of intervention. If Americans chase AQ across the Afghan border into Pak territory, who is really going to object? Only those that support the Pak harboring of AQ members.

So as for the slippery slope that is Russia, I cordially and respectfully invite Tom to provide us his thoughts on what I've written above. The question of why Russia remains a Core State is one that I have asked him more than once...

Tammy: you are missing my point: not much 'wisdom' here according to your definition. just 'intelligence'...

Matthew: no offense taken. sorry if my reply was too brusque.

Matt, if you look at the map, Russia is clearly "new Core" and not gap. Russia is in transition doing some natural give and take. I'm not sure what your point is about police/citizen ratios but I can say that the stronger rule set you have, the less enforcers you need.

Louis, it all depends! ;) Those countries were as shocked to learn about secret prisons on their turf as Captain Louis Renault was to learn there was gambling at Rick's Cafe in Casablanca. Shocked!

Tammy, Sean said it perfectly!

Since when did "you can get away with it" ever justify aggression?

We can't afford to pitch military interventionism over national defense, talk people out of their sovereignty, and cheat them of lasting liberty in exchange for temporary safety. We might start believing those unpatriotic ideas ourselves, and unwittingly jeopardize the future of a far nobler experiment:

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." - Samuel Adams

Russia? It cannot be considered without including Iran and the Caspian littorals, treaties going on in that region.

loscielos, you're misrepresenting what Tom wrote. You may want to familiarize yourself with his work. The isolationist in you will still disagree with him, but at least you'll correctly know his stance. He is simply offering an alternate definition of a Gap country. He never says that "if you can get away with it, it's justified."

The ultimate goal for "us" is to integrate the Gap into the rest of the functioning Core. The Gap is where 90% of all the suffering, civil war, high mortality rates, pollution, lack of upward mobility, etc., exist. Because we are such an interconnected world, you can't just build a wall around the USA or the rest of the Core and stop it from getting to you. Even if you could, that does not justify inaction like we have in Congo or Darfur. Military intervention is only one option and is not preferred (by Tom or anybody else here) in the overwhelming number of circumstances.

His work with Enterra Solutions to help direct foreign investment (rather than aid packages) and build security and prosperity through establishing rule sets for parts of the world is proof of this. Enterra basically teaches governments how to strengthen their sovereignty by building and integrating strong rule sets in a globalized world. And yet, somehow you've accused him of wanting to do the opposite.

Contrary to your view, the US is responsible for exporting lasting liberty to about 1/3 of the worlds population to date, not cheating people of it.

Doesn't wisdom, in part, involve grasping that your knowledge and intelligence may not be adequate enough to justify high risk actions that may have unintended and unforeseen consequences?

Unfortunately, TV commentators and Congressional floor shows tend to give the public the impression that simplicity, style, and uninformed ideology provide the best guidance.