Global Transaction Strategy [author of the Pentagon's New Map #3 at Amazon]

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/gts.htm ^ | Thomas P.M. Barnett and Henry H. Gaffney Jr.

[SAJ]

Merely recounting history here, not saying it would have been a good or a sound idea. McKinley, for reasons I've never quite understood, had quite an expansionist bent. You will note, of course, who presided over the Russo-Japanese peace talks, and won a Nobel for his efforts. None other than T.R., McKinley's vice-president. I've always thought that this was a charmingly subtle way of telling the czars ''No thanks!''

Best regards,

[SAJ]

As of today, that's perfectly true.

Let's visit this same topic in, say, 20 years' time. I do believe your view will have changed by then.

Best regards,

[maica]

I agree, and very well said!
America cannot wall ourselves in a la Buchanan, but we are not seeking to be just a part of a Global Government. The dems are.

[AndyJackson]

We and the Russians will still have potent nuclear weapons arsenals 20 years from now. Nope - THAT rule is one rule that won't change.

[AndyJackson]

It is simply not rational to assume the longer view status quo for Russia and China

And who is asuming the status quo for Russia and China?

[SAJ]

They were considering **purchasing** a piece of Siberia, not **conquering** it. Good grief!

It took 30 years for the U.S. to understand how brilliant a stroke Seward's purchase of Alaska had been, and there had therefrom developed a considerable faction who advocated attempting to buy more land from Russia. A 'replay', as it were.

[AndyJackson]

But beware of anyone who implies that our President and Republicans want one world government.

I don't think that that is how the word "globalization" is being used. It is undeniable that there is an inexorable trend toward global interdependence, global awareness, and global interpenetration of ideas. In fact Free Republic looms large in that. That is very different from saying that the UN should run our military, which is something Kerry has said, but I don't think that is Barnett's position.

[AndyJackson]

They were considering **purchasing** a piece of Siberia, not **conquering** it.

I got that point. It is one thing to buy it. It is another thing to keep it. France would have lost the Louisiana purchase to us sooner rather than later, so they might as well have sold it. If we had bought the Duchy of Savoy, we would have lost it at least two world wars ago.

[SAJ]

The good doctor is making that assumption. His time frame, as repeatedly stated, is on the order of a half-century. Fine, no problem. While Africa, say, may not change significantly in 50 or so years, or South America perhaps, Russia and China most assuredly WILL change, rather radically in my view, over that same time span.

[SAJ]

As they say: ''That's why they put more than one horse into a race.''

FReegards to you!

[happygrl]

I saw it as well, and thought it one of the most informative presentations that C-SPAN has done.

At the concluson, C-SPAN indicated that they have these programs available for purchase.

[happygrl]

Siberia is FAPP indefensible in its entirety, and when (not if) some sufficiently greedy nation makes an attempt upon its vast resources, Russia will have a huge dilemma: defend its territory and watch some huge fraction of its not-exactly-robust economy unravel in the process, and possibly even the nation itself, or submit to a de facto partition.

Thr US shoudl offer to a 99 year lease for Siberia.

Thera are already increasing links between the people of Alaska and the Russians in Siberia.

[Wheens]

Thanks all. One of the most enlightened threads in a long, long while. Nice to see Freepers can carry on in a dispassionate, rational, manner. Nothing like an erudite discussion of a somewhat arcane, but very important subject!

[SAJ]

That, or something very much like it, is the ultimate result in Siberia, you're quite right. Russia hasn't the capital or the technology to extract the resources there, except in very inefficient fashion; the West is increasingly chary of investing in Russia after the first batch of oil deals went sour, the ongoing debacle in and around the Caspian Basin, and the bond default and devaluation of 1998 (bankers have LONG memories...).

If the Russians were to lease mineral/timber(/water?) rights, they'd get hard currency which they badly need, doubtless a nice percentage of concessions, introduction into other investment possibilities, and enormous good will all around. It's win-win for them, completely...and they'll negotiate a VERY good deal for themselves, trust me on this. Russians have historically been a very practical people -- we'll see if that comes into play here, and if they go into leasing.

Potential lessors are STILL going to be highly skittish, though, until there is in place at least a fairly clear rule of law concerning property. This minute, the body of ''law'' that exists is utterly chaotic.

FReegards!

[AndyJackson]

I believe if you read Barnett carefully you will discover that he suggests that China and Russia have a lot of challenges to face.

[Hostage]

The author appears to be a typical run-of-the-mill academic who has framed policy into neat little categories from which to build an intellectual chat-chat. Maybe a few pubs and guest appearances will be the payoff.

The author drones on and on about America's export of 'security'. He could have saved everyone alot of time and mentioned the old cliche that America's chief exports are guns and butter. Okay, grain, oats, rice, etc.

But the author is obviously disrespectful of the chief distinguishing characteristic of America, freedom. He is also unwilling to connect that distinguishing trait with technological innovation and business prosperity.

So what has the United States provided the world in return? Clearly we are a leader in technology and cultural exports, but these are fundamentally private-sector transactions that any advanced economy can provide.

Completely wrong. This statement completely ignores the foundation upon which the American economy is built and which is truly unique in all the world.

America has for better or worse introduced the greatest economic inventions to itself nationwide and to the world attracted to its success. Supermarkets in France, Home Depots in Lithuania, Computers and operating systems in every country, and on and on. The refinement of these innovations and their products may be attributed to other economic cultures, but more often than not refinements are speared by American entrepreneurs and counselors themselves, e.g. Deming in post-WWII Japan.

American sales, promotion techniques and marketing are so pervasive that France must pass laws to outlaw English and Mullahs must brainwash their young that America is evil.

And all of this American success can be attributed causally to the stubborn notion that no government may control absolutely the American citizen. There are illusions of hierarchy and many Americans accept a hierarchical imposition but there are always those that rebel against such structures. And more importantly, the laws of America promote such rebellion.

There is no other country with that kind of culture. You cannot find it anywhere except in America. The only country that exhibits some notion of this rebellious attribute is Russia but it is not yet established there in economic terms.

To be lenient one can say the author makes a nice summary of information already hashed and rehashed. Perhaps he will make himself into a cottage industry of Beltway-ThinkTanking pundit preaching.

[NicknamedBob]

"That is very different from saying that the UN should run our military, which is something Kerry has said, but I don't think that is Barnett's position."

I got a faint whiff of an attitude that America should run the UN, or simply announce what was going to happen, and let the UN me-too in order to survive as an institution.

Clearly he favors the CORE nations, (the INS), promoting interactivity all over the world, while the GAP nations, the OUTS), either learn to play ball, or we will eventually send in some rehabilitation trainers.

As to his personal politics, the show was recorded on June 2, which was before the crummy no-bounce Democrat Convention, before the national out-pouring of good feelings for Ronald Reagan, and before the impressive and stately Republican Convention.

He may well be an academic who is leaning heavily on his co-analysts at the War College for his brilliance.

Still, I plan to follow this "thread."

[Terpfen]

"Although the United States represents only one-twentieth of the global population, its environmental footprint is dramatically larger. This country consumes roughly a quarter of the world's energy while producing approximately a quarter of the pollution and garbage. Economists will point out that we also produce roughly a quarter of the world's wealth, but frankly, a lot of that stays home, while we tend to import our energy and "export" our pollution. Simply put, we live well beyond our environmental means."

The article lost me here. 25% of the world's resources pass through here--we ship a good percentage of that off to other countries in the form of foreign aid and other international handouts. I'm sick of the distortion this statistic is presented with.

[AndyJackson]

The article lost me here. 25% of the world's resources pass through here--we ship a good percentage of that off to other countries in the form of foreign aid and other international handouts. I'm sick of the distortion this statistic is presented with.

No, the fact that the United States consumes 25% of the world's natural resources is not a matter that is under dispute among those who keep count. Our foreign aid is a miniscule fraction of GDP.

[AndyJackson]

He may well be an academic who is leaning heavily on his co-analysts at the War College for his brilliance.

The alleged injured co-analyst[s] might have popped off about this academic injustice, were it to have occurred. What you try to argue is a bit like the theory that no one could have been smart enought to write Shakespeare's plays and so some other genius must have written them, or the other silly theory that they concot is the one impossibly brilliant person is so hard to imagine that the only explanation is the even more unlikely co-existance of two or more impossibly brillian people.

I am afraid the democrat or not, he is the real thing. It takes only a few minutes listening to him to realize that he is the one who thought at least a lot of this up.