In Blueprint for Action, Thomas Barnett outlines his plan for successfully moving states from the Gap into the Core. He proposes a new international system to do so and also discusses the important factors that are necessary for a state to make such progress. The measure of the effectiveness of military intervention is whether the military improved local security enough to trigger an influx of connectivity. Connectivity can be broadly defined as
Connectivity – The enormous changes being brought on by the Information Revolution, including the emerging financial and technological architecture of the global economy. During the boom times of the 1990s, many thought that advances in communications such as the Internet and mobile phones would trump all, erasing the business cycle, erasing national borders, erasing the very utility of the state in managing a global security order that seemed more virtual than real. 9/11 proved differently: that connectivity, while a profoundly transforming force, could not by itself maintain global security.
And as Zenpundit notes:
In other words, Barnett is defining globalization as a dynamic exchange relationship involving migration, resources, money and power.
Additionally, it has been aruged the flow of ideas should be added as a fifth flow. Thus there are 5 vital flows: People, Resources, Money, Security and Ideas.
Keeping these things in mind, I’d like now to turn to the British Empire during the Victorian Era and the British occupation of Egypt. Niall Ferguson has argued that it provides the closest historical model to the US occupation of Iraq and is rife with insight for the present day administration. In 1882, after crushing a revolt against Ottoman and European domination of the country, British troops occupied in Egypt. They remained there until 1956 despite numerous pledges to leave.
According to Ferguson, the similarities are as follow. Britain invaded Egypt to oust a Said Ahmed Arabiw, a military officer who’d seized power in a coup. He was no Saddam and the pretext for intervention was violence against European residents of Alexandria. The British government under Gladstone, like Bush, had also pledged not to engage in imperialism and nation building. In terms of strategic importance, the Suez canal was what oil is now. Over 80% of the canal’s traffic was British, 13% of their overall worldwide trade. Egypt was also heavilly in debt, largely to the British (not surprisingly, Gladstone himself held many such bonds). England intervened in Egypt against the will of the other great powers (France, Germany, Austria, Russia), which met to discuss international problems and as if almost on queue, the French protested. The British won a swift victory and remained there almost 80 years.
So what did Egypt gain from British occupation? More than critics may suspect. Yet was it enough? In a follow up post, I’ll investigate what Egypt gained from indirect rule by England using PNM theory to attempt to answer the question: Was British intervention successful? And if so, could it be a valuable template for future intervention?
No, because England did not leave behind a state that was able to stayt in the Core on its own. Naser’s coup destroyed everything the British had built.
Barnett has written that true globalization wouldn’t be Americanization, but ultimately Britain’s globalization was anglicization. It relied on London’s special place in the world to keep going, outside of the Anglosphere.
This isn’t a special criticism of Britain, though. The grand-power destruction of the United States would surely end this round of globalization just as surely as the last two world wars ended Britain’s.
Germany’s greatest crime was bankrupting Britain. The debt load became to expensive to her, and globalization no longer provided a reasonable return on investment. The world is lucky to have had another anglophonic power able to play back-up, if only after 50+ years of lost ground.
“The world is lucky to have had another anglophonic power able to play back-up”
Japan does not consider itself lucky to have been bombed with atomic weapons. The Vietnamese are not lucky to have been sprayed with napalm and Agent Orange, and carpet-bombed. Many Middle Eastern people feel that America supports their oppressive governments, just because of oil. Many Iraqis are not happy about the American occupation.
It’s very arrogant for some Americans to assume that the world is lucky because of America. Many people in the world actually see America as a selfish bully.
Mi: The Japanese don’t have to consider themselves lucky. They are. And the suffering of the Japanese in the 40s is nothing compared to what they were doing to and what they would have continued doing to their neighbors. The world is indeed supremely lucky that the United States took the burden of shaping the post-WWII world by creating the UN, World Bank, NATO and so forth, providing the global security necessary to ensure free trade fostering globalization and increased worldwide prosperity etc.
You wrote “Britain invaded iraq”–you meant Egypt, right?
Bill: Good eye, fixed it!
Chirol: You are only giving the American point of view. The other world view is rising anti-Americanism. This trend is so significant, that many American corporations are complaining that their global sales are down because of anti-Americanism.
“the Vietnamese were carpetbombed” Yeah, right. Look at the areas that suffered the so-called “carpet bombing”, and you’ll nte that theya re areas where no NVA were supposed to be. “sprayed with napalm” Not indiscriminaely, they weren’t. And that newsclip running through your mind of the little naked girl running away. She was hit as a result of a Vietnamese Air Force strike, not U.S.. But why bother with reality, when you can watch endless re-runs of “Apocolypse Now”. Many Middle-Eastern people are right. Why would we even care about the region if it were not for oil? Why would you? But, as an alternative solution, would you have the U.S. step in and topple those oppressive governments? Or, just topple select oppressive governments. Say, those that lean to the right?
Gracious, lirelou, you seem to be a trifle upset. And I don’t blame you. After all, the Vietnamese who accidentally got killed by Americans (or their Vietnamese allies) were probably glad of it, better dead than red and all. Anyway, they were asking for it, having de facto declared war on the United States by not immediately killing every commie that showed their face south of the 17th parallel. Of course, if the areas were where no NVA were supposed to be, who were we bombing?
I must admit that I am not sure of how one uses napalm as a precision guided munition. Perhaps US troops surveyed the area before hand, to make sure no innocent Vietnamese were present.
While I admit that “Apocalypse Now” is not reality, I am not so sure your version of reality would be accepted by many Vietnamese, now or then.
Personally, I don’t think the US would care about the Mideast if it weren’t for the oil. None of the major powers really gives a damn about sub-Saharan Africa, after all, except for parts that have oil like Nigeria and Angola, and even then not much.
As I grow older and more cynical, I tend to think that people end up with government they are comfortable with, or total chaos. Those that are dissatisfied with a government either revolt or leave, if allowed to do so, unless their government locks them up, thus encouraging their family and friends to revolt or leave.
If the US did topple all the oppressive governments on Earth, there wouldn’t be many governments left, would there? I don’t think the GOP, much less Geo. W. Bush, is anarchistic enough to do that, so they may rest easy, for now. Unless they control strategic resources and tried to kill his Daddy. Then they’re screwed.
I think it would be a good idea for Uncle Sam to write on a blackboard 100 times “Do not get involved in other peoples’ civil wars.” Especially after Vietnam, Haiti, the Balkans, Somalia and now Iraq. It just ain’t worth it in the long run.
In terms of strategic importance, the Suez canal was what oil is now. Over 80% of the canal’s traffic was British, 13% of their overall worldwide trade.
The above quote implies that a similar relation between America’s demand for oil exists with Iraq. But that simply isn’t true. At most the U.S. has imported 7% of it’s oil from Iraq, the average (1960-2002) only 1%. Additionally, while 4% of the U.S. oil imports came from Iraq in 2002, that was only 1% of what Iraq exported overall.
Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela, in order, accounted for 68% of United States crude oil imports in November ’05. Those five countries have been the top five suppliers of oil to the U.S. for pretty much the last 20 years (it’s actually longer than that, but I didn’t want to crunch numbers).
If you’ll remember your PNM (“who’s blood for who’s oil?”), you know that most of the Iraqi oil exports are going to China. In terms of strategic importance, the Iraq-oil-US equation just doesn’t wash. And on that basis the imperialism implication doesn’t hold water.
Otherwise, I’m interested to see what you have to say about Egypt as a result of British occupation. They seem to know a good deal about how to do SysAdmin right while the U.S. still hasn’t learned (or, more correctly, we seem to have forgotten what seemed to do so seamlessly following WWII).
(P.S. Pardon the puns.)
(P.P.S. Oil statistics source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0504.html)
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » British Egypt and PNM Theory Part II
PamC: I’m well aware that the US actually gets only a small amount of oil from the Middle East. However, you’ve misunderstood. The importance isn’t that the US gets Iraq’s oil, the importance of Iraq is its supply, not what percentage of that the US purchases. Bringing Iraq back online is an important step towards bringing the price of oil back down, stabilizing the world supply and having more in the case that another oil producer can’t deliver (Iran if attacked) or embargos the west.
Also, don’t forget Iraq’s strategic location in the heart of the Middle East, just as Egypt was important for the British so is Iraq to us.
Sir Ignatius is quite correct. Most “typical” oils, such as Iraq’s, are essentially fungible, and can go anywhere. It is only very heavy oils, like those from Venezuela, that can only go to a few refineries that have the appropriate upgrading technology. That, by the way, is why the quoted price of oil in the headlines is a bit misleading. The $60+ prices reflect the “nicest” oils; most trade at a discount because they cost more to refine…
Mi-Hwa wrote:
“Chirol: You are only giving the American point of view”
I may be incorrect but I believe Chirol is a citizen of Germany, not the United States; ergo he cannot be giving the ” American view” , just simply one you disagree with.
“It’s very arrogant for some Americans to assume that the world is lucky because of America. Many people in the world actually see America as a selfish bully”
Many of those people who harbor deep resentments of American power tend to also be those who are bullies in their own neighborhoods – Jihadis, Taliban, Chinese Communist Party bureaucrats, Hamas gunmen, Leftist thugs of various nationalities. American power that disrupts their cozy arrangements is most unwelcome to them.
Mark: The contributors page of this blog says ” “Chirol” is a US citizen” .
Also, people who resent America are not just the bullies. European countries are trying to prosecute CIA agents who illegally kidnap and render suspects. Amnesty International considers Guantanamo Prison to be a serious human rights violation. President Bush admitted that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began, and the death rates continue daily. Millions of people around the world have protested American actions in Iraq. The Bush Administration denies global warming exists, even though 156 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. America reserves the right to use nukes against non-nuclear states, which many countries see as unfair advantage.
All these people who are anti-America have valid reasons.
Mark: I’m not only American, I’m a southerner! I just happen to live in Germany at the moment, south Germany too =)
Mi-Hwa – Are you serious about your criticism or are you like the child that wants a pony on top of all his other impossible requests? Japan may not consider itself lucky to have suffered from atomic bombardment but it certainly would have been unhappier if it had been under Soviet or Chinese postwar occupation. Please tell me you’re not an Imperial Japan nostalgic. You don’t actually think that the best outcome would have been for Japan to have won the war, do you?
In any scenario, the adults weigh the realistic outcomes and pick the best practical alternative as their preferred one. The kids just want a magic wand to be waved. The anti-americans are overwhelmingly childish. They want the big mean US to go away but have no practical view of what better world this would bring about.
NeonCat – Napalm is a precision guided munition in comparison with what came before. To achieve the same destruction with prior weapons, do you assert that there would have been less collateral damage? I doubt you can make a case for that.
As for the GOP appetite for regime change. I think you will find it a bipartisan policy so long as subnational groupings in the Gap remain the world’s premier growing threat. That threat is greater when those groupings can gain oil or other extractive resource revenues but it remains potent even where there are no wells or mines.
Chirol’s Comment: The importance isn’t that the US gets Iraq’s oil, the importance of Iraq is its supply, not what percentage of that the US purchases.
But that’s the analogy you present: “In terms of strategic importance, the Suez canal was what oil is now. Over 80% of the canal’s traffic was British, 13% of their overall worldwide trade.” The canal is as oil and British is as to the U.S. So what I read (using direct replacement) is “Over 80% of the oil is U.S.’s,” which isn’t accurate.
Bringing Iraq back online is an important step towards bringing the price of oil back down, stabilizing the world supply and having more in the case that another oil producer can’t deliver (Iran if attacked) or embargos the west.
It may be that bringing Iraq into oil production will bring world prices down, but the increase in oil prices is not that Iraq was taken offline. Iraq has never been a big oil producer. Iraq is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. The increase in prices is due to an increase in demand… and not from the West but from China and other developing nations in the East.
My point is that the analogy you draw just isn’t accurate.
Also, don’t forget Iraq’s strategic location in the heart of the Middle East, just as Egypt was important for the British so is Iraq to us.
Totally agree on this point.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » British Egypt and PNM Theory Part III