<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1</id>
   <updated>2010-03-16T11:02:48Z</updated>
   <subtitle>Senior Managing Director, Enterra Solutions
This is my personal weblog. As such, the views expressed here are my own.</subtitle>
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.31-en</generator>


<entry>
   <title>China may not bury us</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/china_may_not_bury_us.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11163</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-16T09:54:44Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-16T11:02:48Z</updated>
   
   <summary>ARTICLE: There&apos;s a new Red Scare. But is China really so scary, By Steven Mufson and John Pomfret, New York Times, February 28, 2010 A brilliant compilation of gag-worthy thinking! A favorite bit: This new Red Scare says a lot...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>ARTICLE: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022602601.html">There's a new Red Scare. But is China really so scary</a>, By Steven Mufson and John Pomfret, <em>New York Times</em>, February 28, 2010 </blockquote>

A brilliant compilation of gag-worthy thinking!

A favorite bit:

<blockquote>
This new Red Scare says a lot about America's collective psyche at this moment. A nation with a per capita income of $6,546 -- ensconced above Ukraine and below Namibia, according to the International Monetary Fund -- is putting the fear of God, or Mao, into our hearts.

Here's our commander in chief, President Obama,talking about clean energy this month: "Countries like China are moving even faster. . . . I'm not going to settle for a situation where the United States comes in second place or third place or fourth place in what will be the most important economic engine in the future."

And the nation's pundit in chief, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, even sees some virtue in the Chinese Communist Party's monopoly on political power: "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages."
</blockquote>

Can you feel the cringe?

Better stuff:

<blockquote>
"We have completely lost perspective on what constitutes reality in China today," said Elizabeth Economy, the director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "There is a lot that is incredible about China's economic story, but there is as much that is not working well on both the political and economic fronts. We need to understand the nuances of this story -- on China's innovation, renewables, economic growth, etc. -- to ensure that all the hype from Beijing, and from our own media and politicians, doesn't lead us to skew our own policy."

Having lived in China during the past two decades, we have witnessed and chronicled its remarkable economic and social transformation. But the notion that China poses an imminent threat to all aspects of American life reveals more about us than it does about China and its capabilities. The enthusiasm with which our politicians and pundits manufacture Chinese straw men points more to unease at home than to success inside the Great Wall.
</blockquote>

Mufson and Pomfret are wonderfully sensible observers of China, having lived there for the duration, as it were, of China's rise to date.

Some brutal stuff here, dished out without mercy:

<blockquote>
In other areas, politicians and pundits also have a tendency to overestimate China's strengths -- in ways that leave China looking more ominous than it really is. Recent reports about how China is threatening to take the lead in scientific research seem to ignore the serious problems it is facing with plagiarism and faked results. Projections of China's economic growth seem to shortchange the country's looming demographic crisis: It is going to be the first nation in the world to grow old before it gets rich. By the middle of this century the percentage of its population above age 60 will be higher than in the United States, and more than 100 million Chinese will be older than 80. China also faces serious water shortages that could hurt enterprises from wheat farms to power plants to microchip manufacturers.

And about all those engineers? In 2006, the New York Times reported that China graduates 600,000 a year compared with 70,000 in the United States. The Times report was quoted on the House floor. Just one problem: China's statisticians count car mechanics and refrigerator repairmen as "engineers."
</blockquote>

Brilliant piece.  Much that needed to be said.  Fear-mongers and hysterics put on notice.  What's not to love?

(Via World Politics Review's Media Roundup)]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Tokyo retakes top spot as U.S. debtholder</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/tokyo_retakes_top_spot_as_us_d.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11168</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-16T06:12:53Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-16T06:16:09Z</updated>
   
   <summary> WORLD NEWS: &quot;China Unseated as Top U.S. Debtholder: Japan Takes No. 1 Spot Among Foreign Owners of Treasurys, Amid Beijing&apos;s Sale of T-Bills, Other Holdings in December,&quot; by Deborah Solomon and Mark Gongloff, Wall Street Journal, 17 February 2010....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
WORLD NEWS:  "<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704804204575069172269719754.html">China Unseated as Top U.S. Debtholder</a>:  Japan Takes No. 1 Spot Among Foreign Owners of Treasurys, Amid Beijing's Sale of T-Bills, Other Holdings in December," by Deborah Solomon and Mark Gongloff, <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, 17 February 2010.

MARKETS & INVESTING:  "<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/434f42f0-1cf6-11df-aef7-00144feab49a.html">Beijing's rebalancing raises fears for Treasuries</a>," by Robert Cookson and Michael McKenzie, <i>Financial Times</i>, 19 February 2010.
</blockquote>

China sells a record amount of its U.S. T-bills in December and thus Japan is once again #1 U.S. debtholder.  

Has China already "tired" of its role as top creditor to the U.S.?

Some say China is merely rebalancing its portfolio, putting more money into other dollar-denominated assets, like private equity and corporate debt (although this data shows none of that).  So yes, a record sale, but when compared to total dollar holdings, a drop in the proverbial bucket.

China, for example, is still buying plenty of the longest-term T-bills, not something one does when doubting America's future.  Plus, with the Eurozone's new troubles, the flight-to-safety dynamic is kicking in again, so the numbers may change plenty in January.  Plus, China's export earnings simply slowed. 

So some suspect that the real underlying trend is that China is letting the short Bills expire and putting a lot of that money in longer ones--pretty smart, one would think, given our near-term circumstances and political leadership.

The thing I would say to remember:  if China decided to short the U.S. aggressively, rest assured that this strategy would be so frightening to other great powers/economies that, when forced to choose, I would expect the vast majority to step in and fill the purchasing gap rather than sit back and watch the Chinese commit a sort of financial hara-kiri and hope life would be better in a future world where the Chinese felt emboldened enough to act that rashly. 

Plus, the more the Chinese would devalue the dollar, the greater the systemic pressure would be for China to allow its own currency to rise--something also fraught with a lot more danger.  Frankly, I like America's odds at political stability with a currency collapse a lot better than China's with runaway inflation.

Anyway, I wouldn't expect such suicidal tendencies from the Chinese Communist Party so long as the renminbi remains pegged to the dollar.  After that stops, I think the Chinese will have plenty of problems of their own to manage without picking fights with us.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>A genuine insurgency, a genuine COIN effort, and the usual population trapped between</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/a_genuine_insurgency_a_genuine.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11167</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-16T06:11:18Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-16T06:12:35Z</updated>
   
   <summary> NEUTRALISING THE NAXALITES: &quot;Indian villagers trapped between rebels and police: As conflict between New Delhi and the Maoist movement intensifies, civilians are living in fear,&quot; by Amy Kazmin, Financial Times, 17 February 2010. More interesting details on India&apos;s internal...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
NEUTRALISING THE NAXALITES:  "<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6df076d8-1b24-11df-953f-00144feab49a.html">Indian villagers trapped between rebels and police</a>:  As conflict between New Delhi and the Maoist movement intensifies, civilians are living in fear," by Amy Kazmin, <i>Financial Times</i>, 17 February 2010.
</blockquote>

More interesting details on India's internal shrink-the-Gap COIN effort against the Marxist Naxalites, who have slowly entrenched themselves in the "red corridor" that runs from West Bengal to India's interior south.  The Naxalites thrive in "remote, inaccessible parts of rural India," defined as places where the "state architecture" is "detached" from daily life.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>China wants to protect/dominate the home market, but also to gain entry into other markets (i.e., have cake, eat it too)</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/china_wants_to_protectdominate.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11166</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-16T06:08:55Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-16T06:11:12Z</updated>
   
   <summary> COMPANIES | INTERNATIONAL: &quot;Handset manufacturing: China groups eyes production in India; Assembly line options explored; Move could ease political tensions,&quot; by Kathrin Hille, Financial Times, 17 February 2010. Interesting dynamic to watch: like Japanese or Korean companies of years...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
COMPANIES | INTERNATIONAL:  "<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f402e5d8-1b26-11df-953f-00144feab49a.html">Handset manufacturing:  China groups eyes production in India</a>; Assembly line options explored; Move could ease political tensions," by Kathrin Hille, <i>Financial Times</i>, 17 February 2010.
</blockquote>

Interesting dynamic to watch:  like Japanese or Korean companies of years back that decided it was better to produce in the U.S. versus face growing friction over "stolen jobs," Chinese handset manufacturers are looking to do the same in India.  Chinese handsets currently account for 40% of the market, but they're facing a nationalist squeeze.

The way around that, according to a Huawei (world's second largest biggest telecom gear vendor) exec is, "We must be seen as producing Indian handsets, with Shenzhen manufacturing know-how."

Trick for China:  while it lets foreign companies do the same to itself in years past, now the push is on to build national flagship brands that both conquer and dominate China's home market while asking for openness from other economies regarding the growing presence of Chinese companies--whether openly or in this stealthier fashion.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>How firm is China on the yuan:  conflicting messages as usual</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/how_firm_is_china_on_the_yuan.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11165</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-16T06:04:31Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-16T06:08:49Z</updated>
   
   <summary> WORLD NEWS: China, Firm on Foreign Policy, Bends on Yuan,&quot; by Andrew Batson, Terence Poon and Shai Oster, Wall Street Journal, 8 March 2010. FRONT PAGE: &quot;Beijing hints at dollar peg policy shift,&quot; by Geoff Dyer, Financial Times, 8...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
WORLD NEWS:  China, Firm on Foreign Policy, Bends on Yuan," by Andrew Batson, Terence Poon and Shai Oster, <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, 8 March 2010.

FRONT PAGE:  "<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cd3a766-2925-11df-972b-00144feabdc0.html">Beijing hints at dollar peg policy shift</a>," by Geoff Dyer, <i>Financial Times</i>, 8 March 2010.

INTERNATIONAL:  "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/asia/07china.html">China's Bank Chief Says Currency Is Unlike to Rise</a>," by Michael Wines, <i>New York Times</i>, 7 March 2010.
</blockquote>

On Saturday the 6th, China's central bank governor said China will eventually back off from the pegging of the yuan to the dollar, declaring it a temporary response to the financial crisis  This is the closest any Chinese official has come to saying the peg will end someday, even though no great hint was offered on timing.

Apparently, the NYT heard no change, while both the FT and WSJ did.

Most economists expect the government to let the yuan appreciate some by the end of the year.  The Chinese had let the yuan slowly appreciate prior to July 2008, but then froze it in response to growing market tumult.

Problem for Obama:  push hard on the subject in the short-term to appeal to populist impulses here in the States and possibly make the Chinese stubborn in the short-term or wait this phase out.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Of course, eventually terrorists ALWAYS use the latest technology against us.  Tell me something I don&apos;t know</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/of_course_eventually_terrorist.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11164</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-16T05:59:30Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-16T06:04:26Z</updated>
   
   <summary> SECURITY | TECHNOLOGY: &quot;Defending Against Drones: How Our Favorite New Weapon In the War on Terror Could Soon Be Turned Against Us,&quot; by P.W. Singer, Newsweek, 8 March 2010. The first use of any new technology--outside of the military--is...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
SECURITY | TECHNOLOGY:  "<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/234114">Defending Against Drones</a>:  How Our Favorite New Weapon In the War on Terror Could Soon Be Turned Against Us," by P.W. Singer, <i>Newsweek</i>, 8 March 2010.
</blockquote>

The first use of any new technology--outside of the military--is invariably criminal.  Terrorism nowadays follows closely behind.

So yes, all our favorite technologies are eventually turned against us, as they have been throughout time.  In many instances, the lucky first shot is achieved, which we absorb with aplomb most times.

And then we adjust and the trick, once unveiled, gets eminently harder to pull out again.

But, of course, as with all other new technologies, on drones we get these ominous predictions of a "few amateurs" shutting down Manhattan from one "robotics expert," who probably isn't an expert on anything else even though he's seriously extending himself here into sociology, law enforcement, politics, economics, psychology, etc.  But finding these idiot savants is easy nowadays, and they are full of assertions.
 
Singer, leveraging such logic, notes that nowadays a lone baddie can pull off what Hitler's vast military machine never could--strike the U.S. mainland.

Brilliant point.

Hitler's entire war machine couldn't make a cellphone call either, or find itself with GPS, or . . . but you get the idea.  We are totally defenseless against every crazy out there, and chaos is sure to ensue!

As they say, once you pull out the Nazis, you've officially jumped the shark in your argument.

But Singer is selling hard here.  He wrote a book on robots in warfare. 

Now he's selling all sorts of larger fears.  Must be another book coming on.

Anyway, so long as he predicts such things in a broad fashion, he's bound to be a "visionary"!!!!

Because eventually SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN!  And THEY WILL RULE!  For less than $50,000!!!! (according to the all-knowing robotics expert).

Me, I will never go to Manhattan again after reading this chilling article!  I mean, just look at how the island was crippled for years after being shutdown completely by 9/11.  I know, I watched the non-stop TV coverage of all the CHAOS!  You'd think you couldn't film chaos, because it would be too chaotic, but that's a childish point.

Bottom line:  we're totally screwed.

9/11 ushered in an era of non-stop attacks by jets, which, if you didn't notice, crippled both America and the global economy.  So naturally, Singer is correct in predicting that we're headed into an era in which robots deliver bombs with ease throughout the West.  The only solution I can see is the usual Manhattan Project (I know, the symmetry here is weird--almost conspiratorial). 

Singer says as much, demanding a national robotics strategy, something "many competitor countries already have."  When in doubt, centralize planning in the government.  Better yet, appoint a "czar."  If we don't launch such programming, we'll end up relying--as with all things technological nowadays--on Chinese and Indian engineers, always a frightening thing (all Chinese and Indians fantasize about disabling America and ruling the planet in the resulting CHAOS!).  We also need all sorts of technology restrictions.
 
Twenty years ago I heard all the same arguments about GPS, but the military let the technology go mainstream.  Naturally, the result was global conflict and unending chaos perpetrated by lone gunmen, so we can expect nothing less this time.

Buddy, I'm in the bidness of fear-mong'ring, and bidness is goooooooood!]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>West Must Bridge Globalization&apos;s &apos;God Gap&apos;</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/west_must_bridge_globalization.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11162</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T14:35:30Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T14:37:17Z</updated>
   
   <summary> A recent report issued by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights an enduring but growing mismatch between how America conducts its foreign policy and how the world beyond the West is spiritually evolving. Describing what the newspapers immediately...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<img alt="islam1.png" src="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/15/islam1.png" width="200" height="200" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" />

<blockquote>A recent report issued by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights an enduring but growing mismatch between how America conducts its foreign policy and how the world beyond the West is spiritually evolving. Describing what the newspapers immediately dubbed a "God gap," the report (.pdf) decries Washington's "uncompromising Western secularism" as a self-imposed obstacle to broadband engagement of religious groups and parties in emerging economies and failed states. This, despite the fact that many of these religious actors are playing leading roles in facilitating their societies' embrace -- or driving their rejection -- of globalization's numerous opportunities and challenges.</blockquote>

<a href="http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=5269">Continue reading this week's New Rules column at WPR.</a>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Historian failing as futurist</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/historian_failing_as_futurist.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11158</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T09:22:52Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:25:34Z</updated>
   
   <summary>OP-ED: America, the fragile empire, By Niall Ferguson, Los Angeles Times, February 28, 2010 America&apos;s &quot;empire&quot; could all come crashing down tomorrow! Why? Well, it just could--just like the USSR fell so fast. Oh, and a bunch of complexity stuff...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>OP-ED: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ferguson28-2010feb28,0,7706980.story">America, the fragile empire</a>, By Niall Ferguson, <em>Los Angeles Times</em>, February 28, 2010</blockquote>

America's "empire" could all come crashing down tomorrow!  

Why?  

Well, it just could--just like the USSR fell so fast.

Oh, and a bunch of complexity stuff too.

It could happen!  So America has been warned.

An amazingly empty piece.  Even by ass-covering, "I predicted this!" standards, this one feels phoned in.

Ferguson has a gift for simultaneously overselling America and misrepresenting it as an "empire" while predicting its imminent demise.  You get the feeling that he can't see the Bell for the curves, or maybe he just likes saying out-there things all the time.

Historians should stick with their, "I've seen it all before" smugness, because once they use it to project forward, they kill useful imagination.

(Via World Politics Review's Media Roundup)]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>More on South Sudan&apos;s struggle to jump-start development</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/more_on_south_sudans_struggle.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11161</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T08:33:39Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:37:13Z</updated>
   
   <summary> WORLD NEWS: &quot;Fury at unspent funds for Sudan: Only a third of cash used in four years; Strict disbursement rules under attack,&quot; by Barney Jopson, Financial Times, 17 February 2010. WORLD NEWS: &quot;Hope founders where ministers lack e-mail: Western...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
WORLD NEWS:  "<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5ae407a0-1b1d-11df-953f-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss">Fury at unspent funds for Sudan</a>:  Only a third of cash used in four years; Strict disbursement rules under attack," by Barney Jopson, <i>Financial Times</i>, 17 February 2010.

WORLD NEWS:  "<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98ce3cdc-1b1a-11df-953f-00144feab49a.html">Hope founders where ministers lack e-mail</a>:  Western blunders and the limitations of government by former rebels hold back reconstruction," by Barney Jopson, <i>Financial Times</i>, 17 February 2010.
</blockquote>

The fund is administered by the World Bank, and was set up to help the South recover from the long civil war.  Only 1/3rd of the more than half-billion has been spent four years into the fund's 6-year lifespan.

Blame?  The WB has strict rules about how money is disbursed.  Not so bad, because loose rules usually result in theft.

At this rate, it's highly unlike the whole dedicated sum will get spent on time.

So you get things like 100 schools planned, only 44 still active as projects and only 10 completed.  On that one, the applying aid agencies were required to show they were active in all 10 southern states, something that's just about impossible given the lack of security in a few of them.
 
Second story is more of a glass-half-full bit:  the WB convinces the former rebels now running the South to allow the Internet's spread.

But still, some controversy on unspent money here too.

The usual culprits here:  older politicians with no enthusiasm for the project because they have no familiarity with the Web and its uses.

The WB's critics level the usual charges against Official Developmental Aid:  too many ideas "parachuted" in with little understanding of the region's limitations.  Good intentions not matched by local knowledge.

But the biggie is, according to Suzanne Jambo, the PR person for the former rebel group:  "The World Bank is an institution that is not hands on or in post-conflict situations.  So managing funds in a post-conflict situation was not in their expertise."

The plebiscite on whether or not to split the country north and south is next January.  If the South succeeds in its secession, it's clear it'll be a true state instead of the fake, or kluged-together state that is Sudan as a whole.  But it's also clear that it'll be a failing state right from the start.

No surprise there.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Peaceniks for the SysAdmin</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/peaceniks_for_the_sysadmin.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11160</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T08:28:14Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:33:13Z</updated>
   
   <summary>PROPOSAL: The LWV Columbia-Boone County (MO) (90 years old) proposes that the LWVUS 2010 National Convention adopt a study on the establishment of a cabinet level Department of Peace, Dec. &apos;09 Literally, another county heard from! If you toss the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>PROPOSAL: <a href="http://howard.lwvmd.org/DeptofPeaceStudy.pdf">The LWV Columbia-Boone County (MO) (90 years old) proposes that the LWVUS 2010 National
Convention adopt a study on the establishment of a cabinet level Department of Peace</a>, Dec. '09</blockquote>

Literally, another county heard from!

If you toss the domestic violence piece, which is laudable and good but probably an orphan in this construct that's better addressed elsewhere, then the notion, in aggregate, combines a lot of the thinking behind creating a bureaucratic home for the SysAdmin function.

I honestly think that the trick would be less one of creating and maintaining such an entity than how it was wielded, with the leadership being a huge issue.  

If such a department were to exist and made its case vigorously, but then nonetheless found itself having to go with the majority decision that a particular intervention was worthy, then a lot of its credibility as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy would come down to whether or not the department "stuck to its guns"--so to speak.  If, when an intervention unfolded, the Peace folks wrote it off and refused to participate in the backend, declaring it the failure of peace and so on, you'd have nothing more than a blocking function within the government (resignations, obstruction, etc.)--meaning, in effect, a second State Department.  Replicating that function would do nobody any good.

But, if the Department of Peace felt itself truly on the hook, no matter where it's preferred positions fell in the operation of an administration, then you'd have something truly useful lying in between Defense and State, and that would be helpful.  State would know that Defense wouldn't own the situation beyond its logical due date, and Defense would know that taking on the intervention wouldn't stick it with the long-term outcome--combined with State's non-help.

The larger point:  people who are clearly not war-mongers nonetheless see the need for something to fill a gap in our capabilities.

(Thanks: Alan P. Alborn)]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>If it gives credit, I&apos;m for it</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/if_it_gives_credit_im_for_it.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11159</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T08:26:27Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:28:06Z</updated>
   
   <summary>ARTICLE: Bangladesh launches &apos;smart cards&apos; for farmers, By R.G. QUAYLE, BBC, 16 February 2010 A wonderfully formalizing effect that disintermediates all the informal parasitical types--one hopes. Anything that gets people credit for what they possess is a good thing. Can&apos;t...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>ARTICLE: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8518590.stm">
Bangladesh launches 'smart cards' for farmers</a>, By R.G. QUAYLE, BBC, 16 February 2010</blockquote>

A wonderfully formalizing effect that disintermediates all the informal parasitical types--one hopes.

Anything that gets people credit for what they possess is a good thing.  Can't have capitalism without credit.

(Thanks: R.G. QUAYLE)]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Can we please have a little more sophistication on China?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/can_we_please_have_a_little_mo.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11157</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T08:17:52Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:21:40Z</updated>
   
   <summary> ARTICLE: China, Iran Creating &apos;No-Go&apos; Zones to Thwart U.S. Military Power, By David Wood, Politics Daily, 03/1/10 ARTICLE: Think Again: China&apos;s Military, Foreign Policy, MARCH/APRIL 2010 As water-carrying exercises go for journalists, this enthusiastic piece by Wood is as...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
ARTICLE: <a href="http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/01/china-iran-creating-no-go-zones-to-thwart-u-s-military-power/">China, Iran Creating 'No-Go' Zones to Thwart U.S. Military Power</a>, By David Wood, <em>Politics Daily</em>, 03/1/10

ARTICLE: <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/think_again_chinas_military">Think Again: China's Military</a>, <em>Foreign Policy</em>, MARCH/APRIL 2010
</blockquote>

As water-carrying exercises go for journalists, this enthusiastic piece by Wood is as close to preferred Pentagon propaganda for maintaining the Leviathan as you will find.

Thompson's longer piece offers more context on capabilities but does little to explore grand strategic motivation other than to say, it's clear China is growing more worried about its capacity to defend its worldwide economic interests.

(Via World Politics Review's Media Roundup)]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Taiwanese financial services plan on taking advantage of new trade liberalization with the mainland</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/taiwanese_financial_services_p.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11156</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T08:15:41Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:17:10Z</updated>
   
   <summary> COMPANIES | INTERNATIONAL: &quot;Fubon plans China push to exploit Beijing-Taipei trade liberalization,&quot; by Robin Kwong, Financial Times, 1 March 2010. Fubon Financial Holdings plans on opening 200 branches in the next five years in Fujan province, just across the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
COMPANIES | INTERNATIONAL:  "<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58d287c0-24d2-11df-8be0-00144feab49a.html">Fubon plans China push to exploit Beijing-Taipei trade liberalization</a>," by Robin Kwong, <i>Financial Times</i>, 1 March 2010.
</blockquote>

Fubon Financial Holdings plans on opening 200 branches in the next five years in Fujan province, just across the strait.

Another "invasion" has begun.

Fujan is expected to offer a market--on its own--that's equivalent to Taiwan within a decade.  Fujan is marked off as an area specifically designated by Beijing as being open to Taiwanese business expansion.

Hong Kong got a similar deal on Guangdong province.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Let&apos;s leave Grant on the 50</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/lets_leave_grant_on_the_50.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11155</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T08:09:17Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:14:43Z</updated>
   
   <summary>ARTICLE: Who&apos;s Buried in the History Books?, By SEAN WILENTZ, New York Times, March 13, 2010 Big amen on this one: there is no historical logic to pushing Grant off the $50 bill for Reagan. Sorry, but that&apos;s just ignorance...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>ARTICLE: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14wilentz.html">Who's Buried in the History Books?</a>, By SEAN WILENTZ, <em>New York Times</em>, March 13, 2010 </blockquote>

Big amen on this one:  there is no historical logic to pushing Grant off the $50 bill for Reagan.  Sorry, but that's just ignorance (which I shared until reading Edward Jean Smith's fabulous biography recently) of our own nation's history.  

Without Grant the general, the North could have easily slid into peaceful coexistence with the Confederacy, meaning the end to slavery is put off for God only knows how long.

Without Grant, the Chief of Staff, standing up to Johnson, the Reconstruction Era would have gone far worse.

Without Grant the president (and here you need to read the book for the stories), a whole lot of positive precedents and developments.

The best section from Wilentz:

<blockquote>
Had his wife not declined to go to Ford's Theater the night of April 14, 1865, Grant might well have been killed himself. With Lincoln's assassination, Grant was left as the greatest Union hero of the Civil War. He chafed under the neo-Confederate presidency of Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, won the Republican presidential nomination in 1868 almost by acclamation and was elected twice -- the only president to serve two successive full terms between Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson.

As president, Grant was determined to achieve national reconciliation, but on the terms of the victorious North, not the defeated Confederates. He fought hard and successfully for ratification of the 15th Amendment, banning disenfranchisement on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. When recalcitrant Southern whites fought back under the white hoods and robes of the Ku Klux Klan, murdering and terrorizing blacks and their political supporters, Grant secured legislation that empowered him to unleash federal force. By 1872, the Klan was effectively dead.

For Grant, Reconstruction always remained of paramount importance, and he remained steadfast, even when members of his own party turned their backs on the former slaves. After white supremacists slaughtered blacks and Republicans in Louisiana in 1873 and attempted a coup the following year, Grant took swift and forceful action to restore order and legitimate government. With the political tide running heavily against him, Grant still managed to see through to enactment the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination according to race in all public accommodations.

Grant did not confine his reformism to expanding and protecting the rights of the freed slaves. Disgusted at the inhumanity of the nation's Indian policies, he called for "the proper treatment of the original occupants of this land," and directed efforts to provide federal aid for food, clothing and schooling for the Indians as well as protection from violence. He also took strong and principled stands in favor of education reform and the separation of church and state.

Grant's presidency had its failures and blemishes. On the advice of his counselors, Grant appointed men to the Supreme Court who wound up gutting much of the legislation he himself championed. This included the 1875 civil rights law, which the court declared unconstitutional in 1883.

Certainly, Grant's administration was tainted by oft-remembered corruption scandals. But Grant was never seriously implicated in any of them, although emboldened Democrats and disloyal Republicans, with the help of a sensationalist press, did their best to make the president appear the villain. (Grant ill-advisedly decided to present a stoic public face instead of fighting back.)

In reality, what fueled the personal defamation of Grant was contempt for his Reconstruction policies, which supposedly sacrificed a prostrate South, as one critic put it, "on the altar of Radicalism." That he accomplished as much for freed slaves as he did within the constitutional limits of the presidency was remarkable. Without question, his was the most impressive record on civil rights and equality of any president from Lincoln to Lyndon B. Johnson.
</blockquote>

The reason why Grant is underappreciated historically:

<blockquote>
After Grant left the presidency in 1877, he was widely hailed as the most famous and admired living American, his alleged transgressions overcome by a fabulously successful two-year world tour. He was still beloved at his death in 1885 -- a reverence embodied by his monumental tomb in Manhattan, overlooking the Hudson.

But Grant came in for decades of disgraceful posthumous attacks that tore his reputation into tatters. Around 1900, pro-Confederate Southern historians began rewriting the history of the Civil War and cast Grant as a "butcher" during the conflict and a corrupt and vindictive tyrant during his presidency. And the conventional wisdom from the left has relied on the bitter comments of snobs like Henry Adams, who slandered Grant as the avatar of the crass, benighted Gilded Age.

Though much of the public and even some historians haven't yet heard the news, the vindication of Ulysses S. Grant is well under way.
</blockquote>

Reagan did some great things (embracing Gorby in his second term and thus enabling his dismantling of the USSR by denying him an enemy), and had his share of appalling mistakes (Iran-Contra was far worse than Watergate in constitutional terms and dramatically outdistances the tawdry money-makng scandals of Grants' subordinates), but he simply does not rank with Grant's many history-pivoting roles across the greatest crisis in our nation's history.

Without Grant, vast swaths of American history could have easily been altered.  Reagan was impactful, but arrived in a far different, more complex time.

Wilentz's conclusion is sound:  praise and remember Reagan all right, but not by tearing down Grant.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Ft Knox memorabilia</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/ft_knox_memorabilia.html" />
   <id>tag:thomaspmbarnett.com,2010://1.11154</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-15T03:01:31Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-15T03:58:27Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Memento/thank-you for spending three hours (briefing over two hours and the rest Q&amp;A) at the Fort Knox Armor School&apos;s commanding general&apos;s senior staff off-site in Berea KY earlier this month: copy of original WW1 tank recruitment poster. Since group...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Thomas P.M. Barnett</name>
      <uri>http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/14/IMG00094-20100314-1305.jpg"><img alt="IMG00094-20100314-1305.jpg" src="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/assets_c/2010/03/IMG00094-20100314-1305-thumb-500x666-540.jpg" width="500" height="666" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a>

Memento/thank-you for spending three hours (briefing over two hours and the rest Q&A) at the Fort Knox Armor School's commanding general's senior staff off-site in Berea KY earlier this month:  copy of original WW1 tank recruitment poster.

<a href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/03/14/IMG00095-20100314-1309.jpg"><img alt="IMG00095-20100314-1309.jpg" src="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/assets_c/2010/03/IMG00095-20100314-1309-thumb-500x375-538.jpg" width="500" height="375" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a>

Since group out of Fort Knox, I also received super-cool ingot memento.  Now my kids can go to college!  But I was told not to scratch too deep.  (Sigh!)  

Still, take that Goldfinger!

Wonderful mementos from the day.  Very impressive bunch of officers and senior civilians, all of whom are working a stunning amount of organizational change from the last BRAC (base realignment and closure).
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>
