Regards.

Thomas Barnett’s two articles are provocative. We need more thinking about the big picture. But before saying where I think he is right, let me observe what seem to me to be the difficulties in what he proposes. In his second article, he argues for the United States (1) to normalize relations with Iran in the way that Nixon did with China, (2) to withdraw our protection of Taiwan in order (3) to get China to topple the regime in North Korea. The difficulties I see are:

1. China has resisted putting pressure on North Korea because (a) regime change to remove a Communist one-party state there would isolate China’s own form of government and would encourage people in China to overthrow it, and (b) a unified Korea could conceivably pose a stronger challenge to Chinese dominance in the region than a divided one. North Korea is a useful political and strategic buffer for Beijing.

2. China thinks it can get back Taiwan anyway given enough time. America is a relatively declining power in east Asia, China is a rising one.

3. Iran has no strategic incentive to make a deal with America. China in the late 1960s and early 1970s feared Russia and welcomed American support. Iran has no larger enemy against which the support of the United States would be useful.

4. The United States may also be a declining threat to Iran because: (a) America probably cannot prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and (b) America may be on the way out of the whole region if things in Iraq don’t improve.

A tilt toward Iran could also exacerbate Sunni-Shia tensions throughout the Islamic world. Four-fifths of all Muslims are Sunni and I don’t think we want to drive Indonesians and other moderate Sunnis into radical arms by taking sides in the Shia-Sunni controversy.

Where Barnett is right is in his view that what he calls “the gap” (that part of the world that has rejected the full spectrum of modernization) has to shrink. He is also right to argue that fundamentalism will only be defeated when it loses the hope that modern civilization can be reversed. For the perception of irreversibility to take hold, modern civilization will need to demonstrate its staying power and will need to absorb more and more of the world. I guess the question is how far we can usefully go to accelerate this process. But I agree that this long-run outcome could be more strongly emphasized by focusing on the best ways peripheral countries can be drawn into the modern core.

Globalization (or ‘globalisation’ if you prefer) is the answer. But it requires more than just economic liberaliz(s)ation. There must be democratic reform, and an environment of security to make it work.

I differ strongly with you on the role of International Law, however. But that’s a seperate discussion.

Follow up assignment: read this more recent article by Barnett. I’m sure you’ll like this even better than the first one.

I don’t agree with everything Barnett writes, but he has a good grasp on the global strategic situation.

Every nation has a role to play. Even Canada.

Looks like their last discussion ended in early May. They don’t indicate when their next one will be. Hopefully soon.

You are absolutely correct, however, my thought process is that the more NATO expands, the less likely its’ members, or those bordering it’s members are to cause trouble. The Commonwealth and Francophonie especially need to be far more persuasive of their membership. Between the two, they cover huge swaths of the Old World, from India, to Lebanon, to Ivory Coast.

Agreed. The best way to remove disagreements with key allies is to transform the peripheral countries that give rise to the disagreements in the first place. Progressive absorption of peripheral areas into the security and economic system of the Euro-Atlantic might do this.

I’m not sure the Commonwealth can take a more political and military character but a sub-group might be a way for Pakistan and India to work together with South Africa and Australia to create a zone of security and development in the Indian Ocean littoral. The United States could then take a less prominent role and other outside powers would face more of a barrier if they try to substitute their own influence for America’s. Right now China is trying to export its model of authoritarian modernization to Africa in what amounts to a direct challenge to the Harare Declaration adopted by the Commonwealth in 1991, which coupled the goal of development with the goal of greater democracy.

Incidently, is another Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs public website discussion likely this summer?

India is going to take a larger role in Indian Ocean security and the question is whether it does so unilaterally (at the risk of conflict with Pakistan and maybe China) or through some multilateral grouping. The United States should encourage the multilateral option if it is possible.