Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Epoca -- What is the new Pentagon's map?

Thomas Barnett -- The map begins by plotting where the U.S. has sent its military forces around the world since the end of the Cold War. These are not places, in effect, where we were—as we did in the Cold War—hoping to counter any Soviet influence, so these were the natural "hot spots" of mass violence around the world, to which we felt a need to respond, otherwise too many people might die and too much instability might result.

Epoca -- How did you find that?

Barnett -- What I did with this map was simply draw a line around 95% of those cases and ask, What is it about these regions that seems to attract U.S. military interventions time and time again? I came to the observation that these regions were, by most definitions, made up of those countries that are least connected to the global economy. Typically, many of them export one or two raw materials but very little manufactured goods, for example. I called these regions the Non-Integrating Gap. These regions include much of the Caribbean Rim, the Andes portion of South America, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, Central Asia and the Caucasus, the Middle East, and much of Southeast Asia.

Inside this Non-Integrating Gap one finds, since the end of the Cold War, all the wars, all the civil wars, all the ethnic cleansing, all the genocide, all the instances of mass rape as a tool of terror, all the children forced into combat units, all the UN peacekeeping missions, and virtually all the major narcotics exporters and terrorist groups that we worry most about. So my motto became, disconnectedness defines danger. If your economy is not well connected to the global economy, odds are you are far more likely to experience mass violence and thus attract some military intervention from the outside—most likely from America.

Epoca -- How this new map is divided?

Barnett -- Counter to this image is what I call the Functioning Core of globalization, or roughly two-thirds of the global population. In the Core is included North America, Europe and Russia, China, India, Japan and South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Chile and Brazil. Among these countries, I maintain, there is little chance for war in any traditional sense. Therefore I argue that the main military mission of these Core states is to collectively work together to improve the security situation across the Gap and—by doing so—shrink that Gap over time by helping those regions integrate themselves with the global economy in a fair and just manner. That integration, while facilitated by security provided by the Core, is ultimately a private-sector-driven process by which the Core sends foreign direct investment into the Gap and helps those countries move up the production chain toward real economic development.

Also, by shrinking the Gap, I believe you end the disconnectedness that fuels not only conflicts and wars, but also generates the seeds of international terrorism. So, in my view, America and the Core win the Global War on Terrorism by shrinking the Gap and—by doing so—making globalization truly global in a far and just (but also secure) manner.

Epoca -- What is the role of Brazil in this map?

Barnett -- Brazil is part of the Functioning Core of globalization because it has moved off of a strong dependence on exporting mostly raw materials to a new economic profile that includes manufactured goods like steel, industrial agriculture (Brazil is, I believe, the number one meat exporter in the world), and real breakthroughs in medical and biotechnology sciences. It is also a stable country with no real risk of war, although it, like many states ringing the Gap, suffers some security issues with its borders—namely the Amazon forest area.

Epoca -- Do you think there is risk of Brazil losing the Amazon?

Barnett -- I see no risk of Brazil losing the Amazon. Quite the contrary, I see Brazil needing to, and succeeding in, generating greater transparency throughout the Amazon basin so as to preclude negative activities there involving narcotics trafficking, environmental pillaging, and rebels/terrorists seeking sanctuary. If anything, I believe Brazil needs to play a bigger security role not just in South America but elsewhere in the Gap. Increasingly, Brazil's economic health will depend on its ability to maintain its connectivity to the global economy. Look at how much Brazil's economic ties have, for instance, grown with China in recent years.

Epoca -- After the Middle East crisis, Brazil and South America lost relevance. Why do you think that the free trade area of the Americas is going to be a reality in 2015?

Barnett -- I think there are strong economic reasons for this FTAA to develop, but such negotiations typically slow down dramatically in harder economic times. The notion was proposed in the very prosperous 1990s, and now seems less realistic. But as the global economy once again picks up speed, I expect progress to continue either on a FTAA, or such progress on things like a Central American FTAA or bilateral agreements between the U.S. and other Latin American states that the group of involved nations as a whole will once again push far harder to make FTAA a concrete possibility. For now, however, America is rightfully accused of paying too much attention to a global war on terrorism and not enough on fostering more Core-Gap economic and trade connectivity. I believe America must also end much of its protectionism on agriculture in the current Doha Development Round of the WTO. A more balanced mix of security and trade issues in the second Bush administration would go much farther in winning a global war on terrorism than focusing too much just on security issues.

Epoca -- The violence in Iraq is increasing; the terrorist organization al Qaeda continues to defy the USA. Do you think the world is safer now after the Iraq occupation? Why?

Barnett -- I think the world is safer after the Iraq war, but less so because of how badly we have conducted the Iraq occupation. I think America needs two types of forces: one that specializes in wars of the sort that toppled the hated Saddam Hussein regime and one that specializes in effective peacekeeping and nation-building efforts. I have thought America needed both forces for quite some time, and if it takes the botched Iraq occupation to bring such a second (i.e., peacekeeping-focused) force into being, then it at least serves that purpose. As for Al Qaeda and Middle East terror groups in general: after the invasion they are all back to the same geographic pattern we saw in the 1970s and 1980s, meaning they can strike at will throughout the Middle East and reach into the southern portions of Europe and Russia. They do not seem able, anymore, to reach all the way into the United States, so obviously this is a real improvement—from our perspective—when compared to 9/11. Does the Middle East feel more secure after the removal of Saddam from power? I think not, but I truly believe that the grievances of virtually all transnational terrorism lie in the Middle East itself, so better for the violence to occur there, where it belongs, than on the streets of New York. People criticize this current administration for trying to transform the Middle East, but I ask you, do you think that terrorism emanating from that region will end simply if the world pulls out of those countries and stops buying that oil? Or do you think it only ends if Bin Laden and others have their way and turn the region into a giant version of Taliban Afghanistan? If that occurs, do we have a safer then? Or a more dangerous one?

People want simple answers to complex issues, but there are none. You cannot win a global war on terrorism until the Middle East joins the Functioning Core of globalization offering more than just oil and terrorism. The countries there need broad economic connectivity to the outside world that allows their young people a chance to make their own economic way rather than relying on "trust fund" governments who control too much of the wealth generated by all that oil Until that happens, we will continue to suffer from authoritarian regimes in the region, and those regimes will continue to attract the attention of desperate terrorists who want to topple them. If I though that just killing all the terrorists would work, I would advocate that, but I do not. I think we need to connect the Middle East to the outside world faster than the Bin Ladens and Zarqawis of that region can disconnect it. To me, that's the real global war on terrorism.

Epoca -- Do you think the world of your children (after 9/11) is safer than the world at the time of your parents during the Cold War?

Barnett -- Yes. My parents faced global nuclear war, which is not a danger today. To say that terrorists are far more likely to use a nuclear bomb is not the same as two nuclear superpowers going to war. To me, there is no comparison between the two ages. Since we've invented nuclear weapons, no two great powers have ever gone to war, despite the long rivalry between us and the Soviets during the Cold War, and since the end of the Cold War, inter-state wars have largely disappeared. Now we face mostly subnational violence within states and transnational terrorists. More complex on many levels, yes, but far smaller problems. Big wars between big states are a thing of the past, and now we're getting down to the truly harder security issues to tame—like terrorism. But you have to keep some historical perspective on it all.

Epoca -- After the end of the Cold War, do you think that the Pentagon underestimated the role of terrorist groups like al Qaeda as a result of clash of civilizations or culture?

Barnett -- Yes, we did underestimate the role of terrorists in the post-Cold War world, but we did so because we failed to recognize how profound our victory had been in the Cold War. There is no significant danger of war among great powers anymore, and inter-state war is disappearing because America's military prowess is unmatched. When those big issues are off the table, what you are left with is terrorism. The Pentagon is uncomfortable dealing with terrorism because that sort of warfare is so asymmetrical, but 9/11 requires that we deal with that threat now, and that means changing our military fairly dramatically in coming years.

Epoca -- You said that the Middle East will be transformed over the next two decades. How will this transformation happen?

Barnett -- Three trends will push it. First, the "middle-aging" of the population, as the current youth bulge moves into its thirties and forties. That demographic aging of the population will make societies more impatient for political change. Second, time is running out on the oil economy. Global oil demand probably peaks around 2025. As soon as that happens, the Middle East's hold on everyone attention begins to drop precipitously. As that reality draws near, expect to see governments there try to change themselves in terms of being more receptive to populations they can no longer bribe with oil wealth. Third, the U.S. is in the Middle East to stay, because if we pull out, transnational terrorism will simply pull us back in by doing something even worse than 9/11 to draw out attention back. Beyond the U.S., expect basically all of the powers of Asia to come to the Middle East militarily in coming years out of their growing economic interests. Asia already takes the majority of the oil coming out of the Gulf, and it's requirements double in the next two decades, so you do the math and tell me Asia's interest in, and presence with regard to, security in the Persian Gulf won't skyrocket in coming years. Put those three trends together and the Middle East of today will inevitably change radically over the next two decades. Iraq of today is just the match, but that fire was going to be lit by someone if not the U.S. It was just a matter of time.

Epoca -- In your book you anticipate that Kim Jong-Il must be removed from power and Korea must be reunited during the second term of Bush administration. How can Kim Jong-Il be removed?

Barnett -- Key here is to get China to want Kim gone. If U.S. and China can walk into Kim's palace and say that the time has come for him to go, my guess is he might take the package if enough if offered, like a Baby Doc in Haiti or a Charles Taylor in Liberia. If he won't go peacefully, then I target his subordinates to aid you in his removal. I think his power base is far more shaky than is popularly believed. He isn't the all-powerful leader. So in the end, I don't see any invasion, more an engineered coup either with locals or operations focused specifically on him. Kim's list of crimes against his own people is a long one, including a self-induced famine that killed at least two million. He's next because he's got nukes and he can't be trusted to be rational, and because East Asia needs a NATO-like military alliance that binds all the major powers there and rules out great power war for all time, like it has in Europe. Kim's removal is the trigger for that positive development. He's a very evil man whose time has come.

Epoca -- In this new map, what kind of relationship will have China and United States?

Barnett -- The U.S. and China must be and will be strategic partners out of shared economic interests. China's influence around the world is based on its adoption of capitalism which in turn generates huge demands for resources. This is both natural and good, so no fear on our part should be involved. I don't see a new cold war, only some idiots in high places who still dream of this nonsense. They are growing very few in number.

Epoca -- Would countries like France and Germany accept the American hegemony? How the America would work in this scenario?

Barnett -- I don't see hegemony. I don't even know what that word means in today's era of globalization. Again, I think that is old language applied to new, far more complex realities. Does America wage war unilaterally if others pay for it by buying our debt? There is no such thing as "free riders," as everything it too connected for that simple model of power-hoarding. Same with "hegemony." It is a word from a time that no longer exists.