Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

ARTICLE: “Hu Yields Little On Major Issues In Bush Summit: Business Ties Underscored At CEO-Heavy Luncheon; Two Very Different Toasts,” by Neil King Jr., Jay Solomon and Jason Dean, Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2006, p. A1.

OP-ED: “Fear of China,” by Robert D. Kaplan, Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2006, p. A14.

OP-ED: “Henry and Hank,” by Moeen Qureshi, Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2006, p. A14.

ARTICLE: “China Bank in Early Talks on Deal That May Yield Bear Stearns Stake,” by Henry Sender, Wall Street Journal, 17 April 2006, p. A1.

COLUMN: “Africa Emerges as Strategic Battleground: Challenges for U.S. Include Terrorist Ties, Energy Issues, Countering China’s Inroads,” by Frederick Kempe, Wall Street Journal, 25 April 2006, p. A8.

OP-ED: “Osama’s Crusade In Darfu,” by Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, 25 April 2006, p. A27.

My definition of a relationship in danger is when various forms of connectivity race ahead of others.

Take any relationship, really--like sex without commitment or mutual understanding in a personal one.

Right now, America’s relationship with China is seriously out of whack, and Hu’s visit put that asymmetry on display in spades: huge business connectivity reflected in mucho face time with CEOs, and embryonic pol-mil connectivity (reflected in the awkward face time with Bush at the White House, where the PR announcer couldn’t even get China’s name right!).

Yes, yes. Conspiracy to some, sheer incompetence to others. Me? I just see self-interest at work. Everyone is trying to make hay (and money) off China’s rise. Some want to make it off the trade (“Help me secure this deal!”), others off the perceived threat (as in, “Fund my program!”). But in the end, it’s always about the money.

And thank God for that, because when it’s all about the money, there’s always a good chance that logic may prevail in the end.

Don’t expect any logic from the realists like Kaplan (who now employs the whiney logic of military futurists everywhere when he says, “It matters not that China may lack a motive for belligerency…” Yes, yes, let’s keep an eye on the UK too!), because in their world, globalization exists only to increase fragmentation and great power competition over scarce resources!

Thus, we must remember “China’s aggressive attitude toward military acquisition,” lest it be ignored!

Ah so. China buys old Soviet platforms (MiG and SUs, which we know were a lot better than ours, thus they won the Cold War) now updated by the Russians and we spend $70 B on R&D alone for a cruise bomber. Yes, yes, how can we put up with such obvious “aggression”?

And this crap where the Chinese seem to coddle Gap dictators just to get access to their energy…

Really! I’m shocked--shocked to hear that gambling goes on in your establishment, Monsieur Robert!

Well, at least their dicators just kill their own people, while ours send over their best and brightest to kill Americans on our own soil.

Much better than Kaplan’s embarrassingly bad commercial advertisement for the F-22 (though he does end with, “Hopefully, China will become a real ally,” which means--presumably--buy our F-22 in numbers down the road), was the op-ed just below it on the same page by Qureshi (a former PM of Pakistan, a former World Bank senior VP, and the current head of what sounds like a hedge fund). The best line: “In a nutshell, America sees China more as rival, while China sees America more as a partner.”

Qureshi points out that “while the Chinese have been actively cultivating an openminded stance toward America since the days of Deng, the current generation of U.S. leaders [not to mention the journalists-cum-strategists] has declined to follow a similar path.”

What’s so weird is how the Chinese are routinely cast as villains in America (the consistent China bashing you get from average Americans in call-ins to talk radio is stunning in its profound ignorance), “the situation is quite the opposite in China.” Why? “Beijing, which keeps tight control over its national media, has deliberately adopted a policy of not demonizing America in the eyes of its own people,” and in a day and age where this is routine the world over, including among our oldest allies.

Ah, but the realists like Kaplan will tell you this is just Asian craftiness (he compares the China to Thai kickboxing), because they think not just in terms of “pure globalization” (as those silly American and European leaders do) but also in terms of “19th-century grand strategy” (talk about your pathetic mirror imaging by the realists, who couldn’t kick their own 19th-century mindset if they tried). I mean, why have the strategic mindset of the age you actually live in when the 1800s are so much cooler to remember in terms of great power conflicts? Thus the realists remind of Al Qaeda with its demands that we must return to an idealized past that makes so much sense compared to the “chaos” of today…

So Qureshi bemoans the lack of Henry Kissingers and Hank Greenbergs (former AIG chief) in the current crop of strategists and business leaders (although both still work the business side of the house--thank God), and he’s only half right. We definitely have the visionary biz leaders on China. We’re just woefully short on pol-mil leaders--thus we backfill with travelogue journalists.

So the Pentagon continues unabated in its dream of a Big War force that will someday fight China, and the Chinese are fixing to buy a chunk of Bear Stearns.

I know, I know. They’re just being crafty, and we just need to stay real. What can Bear Stearns do that an F-22 can’t, I ask you? We’ll flatten the playing field, all right.

But no sense in limiting our fears to Asia, where, as Kaplan constantly points out, China enjoys the benefits of “proximity” (Clever bastards! Why didn’t we think to locate there!). It’s not enough that Al Qaeda is spreading its wings in Africa, which is ground central for genocide and failed states and pandemics. No, EUCOM commander Jim Jones wants us to get freaked on Chinese “inroads.”

And yes, he really does mean “inroads,” because China has the nasty habit of actually building roads across Africa.

I know, I know. Just wait til the Chinese reach lunar orbit and we all face the possibility of going to bed each night under a Communist Chinese moon!

China’s devious tactics include gaining “political influence through rich infrastructure projects, aid programs and weapons sales.” And what does this amazing influence gain them? The “only string attached for the most odious of its partners: that they not recognize Taiwan.”

My God, those people will invariably conquer the entire world just to prevent it from having diplomatic ties with Taiwan!

So Jim Jones frets about the Chinese and Al Qaeda in tandem. Meanwhile, Darfur burns. The Africans can’t mount an effort, and the Europeans won’t. Plenty of Chinese bodies around with a strong interest in Sudanese oil . . . hmmmmm. Do I see any potential here? Kristof says the Americans are needed but too scared to let their ground troops set off a nationalistic response twisted into jihad by Osama (who’s already warning on this).

So if it can be American ground troops and the Euros won’t come, then mebbe . . . mebbe . . . No! Better to let Darfur burn and counter those devious Chinese. Africa should be ours and ours alone to ignore strategically!

Henry Kissinger? Hell, I’d settle for Harry Hopkins.

We need fix-it guys who can make deals happen with unusual partners. We need to recognize we’re in a Long War that will define our era.

And we need to dump the aging generation of pol-mil leaders and strategists who can’t see the future for what it is.