Truly a New World Order

This weekend I was privileged to stumble across the CSPAN broadcast of Thomas Barnett's briefing of The Pentagon's New Map. I found this three hour presentation so compelling that I watched it again when rebroadcast at midnight. Lately I have found the quality of programs on CSPAN/BookTV so high that I consider it to be television's redemption. Not that I don't enjoy entertainment on TV, but there is so much entertainment and so little quality. The political arguments are just so much noise most of the time and it is difficult to find quality information which isn't crafted for a specific political purpose. And not that there aren't a lot of genuine opinions which are in and of themselves fascinating, but there is very little critical thinking going around and even less based on good research.
And this is where Barnett stands out. He offers us his research as a professor at the U.S. Naval War College without political bias. In fact if you guess his political leaning you are probably wrong.

Three statements initially stood out in his brief:

If you don't read the Wall Street Journal you don't understand security.

Johnny went over there and is never coming home.

Better to check cargo containers where they start not come

The first statement validates my own choice a few years ago to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. More importantly Barnett describes his engagement with Cantor Fitzgerald for several years prior to their obliteration in the WTC on September 11. He discusses how they engaged him and how much understanding the financial community knew about security and had even foreseen trends that would lead to terrorism strikes within the US. Barnett also described money as a coward, fleeing from danger and risk. This forms the basis of much global strife today. People around the world want to have a part in the wealth but in countries that won't play by the global laws, money just stays home. He cites China's admission into the WTO as an example of hope and how far countries are willing to go to play. I also see a parallel with Dr. Raymond Tanter's thesis that peace is a function of a country's acceptance of 'executive authority restraint'. This is where even top government officials are bound by the law. Tanter likes to use the example of Arafat scratching his head wondering why Ariel Sharon doesn't just have his accusers (of financial scandal) shot.

The second statement signals a fundamental shift in the global security apparatus. Barnett advocates a return to the two group solution. Our war machine stays intact in essence, but a larger 'sys admin' group is responsible for developing peace. His example of Iraq as a failure of this encourages him, since failure drives change not success. This security function will be the largest public sector export and long term or permanent.

The third statement not only speaks to the 2nd point, but also signals the first economically viable and logistically sensible solution I have heard to this specific problem. So many security solutions we are involved in are 'sub-optimal'. This is a striking example of a problem that is looked at systemically and leads to a holistic solution.

Barnett also posits:

So expect more 9/11's until you can demonstrate that such efforts are meaningless because our systems (economic, political, social, security) are so robust that the disruptions suffered are minimal.

This is a sober assessment of how to deal with terrorist motivations.

From a current political perspective he also states that it doesn't matter who wins the election, the map will still look the same. It really becomes an issue of how willing we are as a country to embrace our role as the lone superpower. Isolationism will not change the facts, just weaken our position and batter us economically.

In the Q&A at the end of the DVD Barnett reflects that the basic rejection of globalization for fundamentalist groups, in particular Muslim countries, is their unwillingness to allow women freedom.

In "Enter Stage Right" he states:

The real battle cry of anti-globalization forces should be "slow down!" Not "go away!" Of course, a bin Laden and an al Qaeda are going to fight globalization's advance into the Islamic world tooth and nail, because they see their chances to hijack societies there back to their 7th century definition of paradise slipping away with each year that globalization encroaches a bit more into the region. So expect their struggle to get more desperate with time.

Comments

[Critt Jarvis]

Hey Stuart... Barnett's webmaster here...

Excellent piece. I'll send it off to Tom.

Looking forward to reading about your other interests, too.

[Tom Barnett]

An interesting set of take aways. Glad you found it useful.

Keep up the good blog.

[Paula McKenzie]

There's a truly excellent page of constantly updated articles on the Dollar, the Economy, and the New World Order over at http://www.survivalistskills.com/newsitem.htm which - collectively - make for fascinating if alarming reading!