Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

November 2nd, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

36 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Is Barnett more realist than Kaplan?

I listened to the recent C-SPAN interview with Thomas Barnett (get the podcast here) yesterday. I haven’t read the new book yet (sitting on my shelf) so I don’t know all the details of his points, but I thought two things he said were of particular note.

The first being the US stance on Taiwan. Kaplan (YH crosses himself) says China is building subs, we should get ready for them because of Taiwan. Barnett says let’s avoid this inevitable battle with China by standing down on Taiwan: the defense agreement is from another era anyways, and it’ll bring us one step closer to co-opting Beijing economically anyways. In other words, we may have to do a little evil to do accomplish a greater good.

It struck me that while Tom Barnett is pretty idealist, he can play hardball too.

Secondly, Kaplan (“In the name of the Father…”) has used the analogy of China as a 19th Century US. They are developing, and expanding because they cannot contain their development. Barnett used a similar analogy in the interview saying that the US is like Britain in the 19th century, faced with China as the US. Instead of trying to combat the rising economy of this 19th century US, we should figure out how we can co-opt it and use it. The joining of the US and China would make an indestructible force for the Empire.

It seems that as much as Barnett wants to put a jihad on Kaplan, he sure seems to see the context in a similar way. Anybody that has actually read BFA let us know what you think.

Comments to this entry

Curzon
November 2, 2005
3:51 pm
Sir Francis: in what was is this realist? I listened to some of the interview and missed that part on Taiwan. (Note: you can listen "here":http://www.booktv.org/AfterWords/index.asp?segID=6370&schedID=383 with real player.) How is that realist? We stand down on Taiwan... and then what? Watch Taiwan get eaten up? There is NO WAY the current pro-independence administration in Taiwan would bend over and take it. Cancelling our defense agreement would be the equivalent of slamming a "kick me" sign on Taipei.

"To repeat:":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/05/16/kaplan-vs-barnett/#comment-6002

Barnett does some great stuff but he gets East Asia dangerously wrong"”?and his biggest advantage in the debate is that if we do what he want us to, it will be too late to reverse course if/when Kaplan and other less optimistic realists are shown to be right.


I'll be back with a chess analogy later.
J.Kende
November 2, 2005
4:09 pm
Yeah it doesn't strike me as very realist to only think of the first half of a massive step like that. "And then what?" seems to be a recurring theme in reaction to much of what Barnett has to say. Where is the contingency planning for what happens if his suggestions fail?

Same deal with his (over)emphasis on economics as a gap closer. Yeah sure economics is a massive weapon/tool/leverage point in re China (along with everyone else). But it just seems like Barnett has a bit too much faith in the "inevitability" and "infalibility" of economic integration being the only approach worth considering seriously.

Using Taiwan as a poison pill at some point might be worth consideration, but it is far from a good idea in itself. I'd rather see us continue to promote economic integration and cooperation in gap closing on the one hand while retaining just as much (or more) of an emphasis on advancing our own interests and militarily advantages in the region for our own sake.

I mean, what's he going to suggest next, that we abandon our new buddies in Mongolia?
Younghusband
November 2, 2005
4:10 pm
bq. Sir Francis: in what was is this realist?

What is our vital interests in Taiwan? What is so important there that we risk war over? Fighting Commies? China isn't even communist anymore, HK didn't turn commie so I am sure Taiwan won't.

I understand his argument is based on trusting China won't invade Taiwan as long as Taiwan doesn't screw with the _status quo_, which is pretty idealist, but what are we defending there?

(PS. I use the royal "we" in the sense that I am part of the West. I know Canada is all for Taiwanese independence, but I am sure Ottawa wouldn't send 1 troop to Taiwan if the chips were down. They might cry a tear or two, but that's it.)
Curzon
November 2, 2005
4:32 pm
Ahh, I get it. Protecting Taiwan is not in our national interest. Some might call that realist; I would call that one-dimensional thinking.

Consider: what would the Japanese or Koreans think of this? Even if they don't recognize the Republic of China, they do have defense pacts with the US. What would the impact there be if we dropped committed allies because it suddenly "wasn't in our best interest." Wouldn't that be a wee bit destabalizing?
sun bin
November 2, 2005
5:16 pm
Kaplan is just intellectually inferior compared with Barnett
lower SAT score, smaller brain, messep up hypothesis :)
So he is going to lose the debate just because of that.

---
about the independence minded government, they commited so many stupid mistakes (threatened to close a TV station that exposed some corruption) that they will most likely lose the next election.
Curzon
November 2, 2005
5:36 pm
Sun Bin -- I believe you are right that the Guomingdan will win the next election. What will that mean for unification prospects?
Joe
November 2, 2005
5:38 pm
The way I understood Barnett's argument in the interview, we have to keep the status quo between China and Taiwan, and let China continue to liberalize until unification becomes not only possible, but profitable for both sides.

This stance makes sense if you assume that political liberalization is going to follow economic liberalization. However, the counterexamples (Singapore and parts of Latin America come to mind) don't impress that idea on me too much.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
5:39 pm
Curzon, taiwan does NOT have defense pact with US.
that is one crucial difference from Korea/Japan's case.

Taiwan Relation Act said that US has the option to intervene. Jimmy Carter(?) is a calculating person. :)
Jing
November 2, 2005
5:41 pm
Curzon perhaps you are unaware that there hasn't been a defense agreement between Taiwan and the United States since the Carter administration. The only thing legislating relations between the two is the Taiwan Relations Act which does not guarantee anything. All it demands is that the President consult with Congress in the event anything happens and that the U.S. supplies Taiwan with defensive armament as it deems neccessary. Whether or not the U.S. will intervene in an actual shooting war across the straights will depend on the prediliction of the President who is in office at the time. There was an attempt some time in the 90's to amend the TRA and add provisions directly stating that the US would intervene, but I can't recall if it died while in commission or was vetoed by Clinton. Taiwan hasn't been a fundamental ally for the United States since the 1970's. Case in point, there are tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in South Korea and Japan and the command structures of the JSDF and ROK army are thoroughly linked with the US army. Taiwan has zip, zero, nada.
Joe
November 2, 2005
5:48 pm
Also in that interview, Barnett blew off the Chinese subs, saying that China is not developing any strategic naval capabilities (like the United States' nuclear carrier task forces)... rather, they're developing a navy that could repulse the U.S. navy in the event of war in the Taiwan Straits. That's all they really need a navy for, given the current geopolitical situation. Where's China going to expand?

In a sense, I think Barnett is being more "realist" than Kaplan when it comes to China. Kaplan is certainly being more paranoid about Chinese intentions. Barnett realizes that China and the U.S. would both collapse if their relations broke down now, and so he looks toward a better solution than wasting money and good relations out of fear that the worst thing will happen (i.e. World War III).
sun bin
November 2, 2005
5:49 pm
curzon,

it just means status quo will be maintained, and barnett's "optimistic" approach is a more likely scenario.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
5:52 pm
"There is NO WAY the current pro-independence administration in Taiwan would bend over and take it."

i was repsonding to this statement.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
5:57 pm
Curzon, you asked about China/Vietnam yesterday.
see "this":http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f93a1260-4b32-11da-aadc-0000779e2340.html

china is bending over to make peace with the smaller neighbors.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
6:08 pm
I was listening to Barnett casually (perhaps missed some of his points). but into 55:00 he said something very interesting,
about 19 year old farm girl willing to do anything to make a living in China.
Then he shifted to agricultural subsidy/etc.

It then happens to em that the best hedge for the US, is to encourage China to agricultural trade.
If China needs to import food, there is GUARANTEE China will never go into any war with US.
Younghusband
November 2, 2005
6:32 pm
What is the only big flashpoint between the US and China (besides Human Rights which we can't do squat about)? Taiwan Straits. I think Barnett is arguing that we back off and think about the big picture. This is a thorn in the side of a potentially closer relationship. If we are really scared we place a few extra guys in Japan. The ROK wants us out, so we load up a boat and head to the Land of the Rising Sun. The big danger in the region is the Norks. We work close with China about them, and their economy, and things will be better.

Plus, Taiwan isn't exactly the free-est democracy right now anyways, what with bosses forcing their workers to vote for particular people at the polls. China won't do anything drastic if it takes over Taiwan, not with the amount of dough that is there. It'll look like the Hong Kong handover. In the end China will liberalize anyways, so why bother with this Cold War hold-out?

Best Regards,

- D. Advocate

Now for the other side:

The Chinese are insane and will blow Taiwan to bits so we have to stand by them, even though it's not in our best interests. Plus, we have to show that we are all for struggling democracies. And even though China isn't building a blue water Navy, those subs can make it to Japan no problem. Besides, it's not like we have troops there. We keep the status quo and wait to see if China liberalizes or not. I'm not going to leave my 10 year old daughter alone in a room with a pedophile simply because _I know_ it isn't in his best interest to touch her. There is much more to China, and the Rational Actor Model can't explain it all.

Best,

The Other Guy
Chirol
November 2, 2005
6:40 pm
Barnett is advocating maintaining the status quo, not selling out Taiwan. China thus far, has made clear that as long as Taiwan doesn't make any serious moves towards independence, and quietly and respectfully maintains the status quo, everything will remain fine. He isn't talking about handing them the deed to Taiwan.

That being said, our defense pact with Taiwan is indeed from a different era and needs to be rethought. This cold war thinking needs to be dropped as we live in an infinitely different world today. What is more important, letting down the Taiwanese or coopting China and helping to assure its peaceful rise and the success of globalization?

Besides, smoothing things over with China would also benefit Japan greatly and thus I can imagine they wouldn't be too worried. South Korea is in a similar situation, but then again what good are they to us right now anyway =)

As YH said, we're talking about grand strategy here, not the details.
Curzon
November 2, 2005
8:07 pm
Jing & Sun Bin: The US doesn't have soldiers based in Taiwan, but see the Taiwan Relations Act:

It is the policy of the United States--
3. to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;
4. to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;
5. to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and
6. to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.


From "Wikipedia:":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

The PRC does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as it is viewed by them as "an unwarranted intrusion by the United States into the internal affairs of China." Nonetheless, the United States, despite having "acknowledged" the PRC's position regarding Taiwan, declared that "the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan" as part of the Six Assurances offered to Taipei in 1982.


See also our ipso facto embassy in Taiwan, the American Institute in Taiwan.

So the US won't protect Taiwan, but it will; that we don't recognize Taiwan, etc etc.
mark safranski
November 2, 2005
8:10 pm
I arrive late for the party I see ;o)

First, it is important to note that the American position on Taiwan has never changed since the Shanghai Communique and the pasage of The Taiwan Relations Act.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/communique01.htm

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/tra01.htm

It is China and Taiwan that have modified their diplomatic stances. Taipei by dropping their claim to be the legitimate government of all China and moving toward de jure independence as a Taiwanese nation and the PRC by making an active and aggressive shift in their defense posture to a forward position to reunify Taiwan by force ( or punish it militarily for declaring independence).

American interest is in the Taiwan straits maintaining the status quo or failing that, a peaceful resolution of the dispute that is not too disadvantageous to Taipei.

What is troubling is the propensity of the current administration in Taipei to play with fire in terms of provoking Beijing while being entirely unrealistic about Taiwan's defense needs for such a risky foreign policy game of chicken. The U.S. should be there to defend Taiwan in extremis against Chinese aggression and threats to Taipei's de facto independence - we are not here to be manuvered into a needless war with China that some politicians in Taiwan seem determined to provoke.

Such a war would not only be a disaster for Taiwan and China but for everyone since it would probably derail globalization, cause China to break up like the USSR or form a revisionist military bloc with Russia, North Korea, Iran and other malcontented states.
A high cost for supporting Taiwanese independence.

Being provocative while downsizing one's military as Taiwan seems to be doing is a very stupid policy and one the U.S. should not support or encourage.
IJ
November 2, 2005
9:27 pm
In the interview, Barnett stresses that the "G20":http://www.g20.org/index.htm (top 20 economies) would be the organisation to request and legitimise both military offensives and peacekeeping. The G20 would effectively replace in many respects the UN Security Council.

Many questions arise. But, assuming the UN approves this scheme, can the US realistically be relied on to sacrifice forever - in blood and treasure - whatever it takes to be the world's policeman?
Mutant Frog Travelogue » Blog Archive » The future of China (or, exactly what is realist?)
November 2, 2005
9:40 pm
[...] That Tom Barnett interview I mentioned is creating some dissension within our cousin blog Coming Anarchy. [...]
sun bin
November 2, 2005
10:34 pm
curzon,

you forgot what you said again :)

you said, "what would the Japanese or Koreans think of this? Even if they don't recognize the Republic of China, they do have defense pacts with the US. What would the impact there be if we dropped committed allies because it suddenly "wasn't in our best interest."Â? "

i said, there is no binding commitment for taiwan.
so korea and japan will not think the way you thought.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
10:40 pm
mark,

great points.

"it would probably derail globalization, cause China to break up like the USSR or form a revisionist military bloc with Russia, North Korea, Iran and other malcontented states."

there are some people who believe this is good for america, i.e. some = those who believe there is a zero-sum game, and those who are eager to sell weapons.
-- esp. the "break up like USSR" part, even though it is extremely unlikely.
Curzon
November 2, 2005
11:00 pm
Sun Bin -- You're interpretation is just wrong; or at the very best you're giving an overly-legal reading of the situation.

Seoul and Tokyo are not going to see Taiwan swallowed by China and nod their heads: "Oh, nevermind -- the US defense guarantee of Taiwan wasn't really a defense treaty. Our faith in the US defense of our nation is unchanged." Nonsense. From personal experience I can relate that the weakness of America's will to defend Japan is the primary defense concern; while I can't claim intimate knowledge of thoughts in ROK, common sense would dictate it's the same. Great quote from Thirteen Days: "There's only one way the world's going to read this -- we'll sell out our allies for our own safety."

Final comment from me on Taiwan in comments, I have a post on this coming up later this week.

Note: We disagree on much, but as Jing rarely darkens our doors anymore, it's good to have a commenter sympathetic to/advocating the PRC point of view (which is mighty rare in the western world.)
sun bin
November 2, 2005
11:33 pm
'at the end of the day' (oh i hate that phrase), it is still the legal obligation that matters.

They could be concerned for various reason, as you alleged.
To be concerned about Taiwan is different from to think US will break the treaty. these are completely different issues.

---
second-guessing their attitudes

tokyo, i don't know.

seoul, they are probably sympathetic to china, because they also have the norks problem for themselves. the koreans do not have ambition on taiwan.
if you advocate a manchukuo independence they might be interested.

---
i am very critical of the PRC/CCP, if you see some of my other posts. i seem to appear more sympathetic because i think it is more valuable for me to present to you guys some views that you might not have thought of or understood. there are already enough voices critical of the PRC that there is no need (and no incremental value) for me to bandwagon.
Jing
November 2, 2005
11:52 pm
Curzon the interpretation is not wrong, you only have a limited grasp of the Taiwan Relations Act. I won't prognosticate on how Tokyo and Seoul would ultimately react to a PRC annexation of Taiwan but your understanding of U.S.-Taiwan relations is flawed because you are not being far too generic with its interpretation. The TRA is NOT a defense treaty, it is US domestic law. The former ROC-US mutual defense treaty which was enacted after the PRC attack in 1954 but as I said earlier was nixed by Carter. The TRA was the attempt by Congress to soften the blow so to speak. The subparagraphs you quoted are simply the declaration of policy, but it makes no guarantees that the U.S. is anyway obligated to come to Taiwan's defense. All it states is vague "grave concern". Or more significance than the Congressional declaration of policy, is implementation of policy listed in the succeeding subparagraphs you did not list.

# (a) Defense articles and services
In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 3301 of this title, the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

# (b) Determination of Taiwan's defense needs
The President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan, in accordance with procedures established by law. Such determination of Taiwan's defense needs shall include review by United States military authorities in connection with recommendations to the President and the Congress.
# (c) United States response to threats to Taiwan or dangers to United States interests
The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.

As I stated earlier, the United State's only obligation is to sell Taiwan defensive weapons (which are deemed appropriate solely by US discretion) and the President to inform Congress to determine appropriate action. This is also suitably vague and dependant upon the interpretations of the residing President. Contrast this to the prior mutual defense treaty and the difference in intent is quite clear.

Article 2

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and communist subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.

Article 5

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the West Pacific Area directed against the territories of either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 7

The Government of the Republic of China grants, and the Government of the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air, and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement.

That is not to say the U.S. will not come to Taiwan's aid, but it is no guarantee as you seem to be assuming.
J.Kende
November 3, 2005
1:45 am
Coming back to the question of national interest, how much would a swallowed Taiwan be a turning point in the passing of the "fading" world power (America) by the "young" world power (China), like the loss of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines were for Spain and America little more than a century ago.

It is enough that Taiwan is an economic and poltical fellow traveller, easily an ally if we stand up for them, in a critical region to the Great Game of the Pacific in the 21st Century.

As any good chess player knows, never give up a pawn simply because you don't see the value of it. Every piece has value, the pawns all the more because those who do not put effort in advancing in the small ways can never hope to gain much ground at all in the big ways.
Mutantfrog
November 3, 2005
3:40 am
Plus, Taiwan isn't exactly the free-est democracy right now anyways, what with bosses forcing their workers to vote for particular people at the polls.

I know you were just saying this for the sake of argument, but I should respond briefly anyway.

Taiwan may not be the most democratic state in the world, but it is unquestionably among the top three freest democracies in Asia, along with Japan and South Korea. Martial law only ended in 1987, and they didn't even have direct elections for the presidency for several more years after that. Considering the short history of Taiwan's democracy, the record doesn't really look so bad.

Imagine how much longer it would take China to transition from their current system to a free, non-corrupt democratic one if they started tomorrow.

**

The US military relationship with Taiwan is very different from South Korea and Japan. Unlike those two countries, we do not have a real military presence here in Taiwan. We give and sell (mainly sell) military equipment, and we provide training and have a small tactical command center, presumably with the authority to call in troops from Okinawa and Guam in the event of an attack, but there are no US military bases anywhere in Taiwan or the outlying islands.

But, regardless of the exact details of the relationship, the expectation throughout the entire world for decades is that the US has promised to protect and defend Taiwan from Chinese agression (the expectation in the case of Taiwanese provocation is less clear, so let's leave that issue aside for today). If China unilaterally decided to invade Taiwan, and the United States just stood aside and watched, would any of our allies ever trust us again? Of course not, if that were the example we set, it would be suicidal to expect us to come to anyone's aid in the future.

Without getting into a discussion about the origins of the Iraq war, the official line is currently that we are there to bring democracy. How can one possibly reconcile the possibility that, after bringing down a totalitarian regime to install democracy in the Middle East, we stand by and allow another totalitarian government to invade and conquer an established democracy that we have promised to defend in the past?

If we were to let China invade Taiwan without a fight, it would be the best proof so far to both allies and enemies of the US around the world that the war in Iraq was not the result of a pro-democracy policy, but 21st century petroleum mercantilism.
Mutantfrog
November 3, 2005
3:43 am
Also, try looking at a map guys. Taiwan's position is very stategic. Control of Taiwan would extend China's control of sea shipping lanes, and exclusive economic zone in the ocean by hundreds of miles. Both China and Taiwan are already arguing with Japan over gas deposits and fishing zones, and if that was ALL China, Japan's position would be that much weaker.
sun bin
November 3, 2005
5:17 am
taiwan is definite a democracy and free.
but it is more corrupt than S Korean/Japan.
it is not freer than than HK, or at best on par with thai/phil?
HK/Sing are more clean.
but i was just nitpicking, taiwan is definite a democracy and free.

EEZ: why did you say "extend"? it would still be taiwan's to start with if there is no strait war.

Japan's position: yes, if you assume the ally is forever.

"expectation throughout the world"? even the taiwanese themselve do not take this for granted.
there is significant different between the world's view on taiwan than other 'countries', because of the UN, Diplomatic recognition, etc. every country that established diplomatic relationship with PRC has to come clear on Taiwan, including Japan, except US.

there are reasons for US to save taiwan, but it is not about expectation from the world, or korea. it is also not about TRA. TRA just gives the excuse to act.
J.Kende
November 3, 2005
6:47 am
What it comes down to is that Taiwan is an early test of just who is top dog in the 21st century. Are we willing to step aside and simply hand it to China? I for one do not think it is wise to do so.
J.Kende
November 3, 2005
7:03 am
On a seperate Taiwan note, something I have been wondering about is whether the Taiwanese could strengthen their position by encouraging their multinational corporations to invest and integrate heavily in Luzon. Pumping large sums of Taiwanese capital into the Phillipines in order to tilt their sphere of involvement more to the south, diversifying assets in case of a Chinese invasion attempt, and strengthening diplomatic entanglements with the Americans through helping bankroll the modernization of America's Asian stepchild strikes me as a good move.

Maybe it's just because I have a soft spot for the Phillipines.
sun bin
November 3, 2005
8:25 am
Kende, Lee Tenghui was trying to encourage that for many years, then they got burned terribly in 1997.
IJ
November 3, 2005
8:43 am
And the 'world's policeman' is unlikely to enforce a G20 decision it doesn't support. For example, "Venezuela":http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2185212005 and its oil get mentions in the press today. Isn't Barnett planning to bring out a third book to address the political implications of his proposals?
Mutantfrog
November 3, 2005
12:08 pm
Any time you start talking about Taiwan's international situation it gets confusing as hell. I would be willing to bet that if one did a survey would find that a majority of Americans either a: don't even realize that Taiwan is autonomous from China or b: don't even realize that Taiwan isn't a fully recognized sovereign state.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Pinned: America’s Taiwan Policy
November 3, 2005
4:33 pm
[...] Kaplan caused a stir in the blogosphere when he wrote about a new cold war with China; Barnett has done the same with his BookTV debate on Sunday for his comments on Taiwan (noted by Younghusband here, Joe of MF here, and also here, here, here, here, and here). [...]
davesgonechina
November 6, 2005
10:34 pm
Secondly, Kaplan ("In the name of the Father"¦"�) has used the analogy of China as a 19th Century US.


I'm going to post this again because I think it's important. I found evidence that US and Japanese naval strategists have seen Chinese naval experts do nothing but quote 19th century American naval theory - namely Alfred Thayer Mahan. I don't think Kaplan was drawing an analogy, he was referring to the actual popularity of 19th century writings in the Chinese navy. It's the Chinese, apparently, drawing the analogy themselves, not Kaplan.

As for coopting Chinese power, I think it's great. Just figure out how.