Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

February 4th, 2009

Tags

, , , , ,

Comments

6 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Slow Shift

When the Arabs conquered the Mediterranean, shutting off the flow of goods, money, people and security from Europe to North Africa and the Levant, the center of Western civilization moved northwards. As the synergy between mass communications, transportation and new technology empower the East, we see a lagging Asia catching up and the center of world power shifting, albeit slowly, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Both Thomas Barnett (who I hope to meet Tuesday!)and Robert Kaplan have discussed this trend and that the US is uniquely positioned to be a major player on both sides thanks to its geography.

The announcement that Secretary of State Clinton’s first trip will be to Asia instead of Europe is further evidence.

One interesting question is, assuming the center of global power (political, economic, military) does slowly shift to the Pacific, what will it mean for Oceania’s vast array of failing and ungoverned states? Will we see more interventions and peacekeeping missions? Will the US take the lead or may Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China or India. As traffic increases will instability on the many island states there lead to intervention, or can they be bypassed and isolated given their geographic location? Will they face increased pressure to democratize or to regulate their financial systems (e.g. lots of money laundering)? It would be an interesting topic for the boys at Pacific Empire (if they are still alive).

Comments to this entry

Curzon
February 4, 2009
5:21 am
I don't think the minor failing states of Oceania will be affected much by this at all. That the center of the world was in Europe for 200 years didn't stop the Balkans, North Africa, the Basque region, and elsewhere from erupting in frequent sporadic violence, which occasionally exploded into war. And those areas were more physically connected to the core of power and money than the Solomon Island, Papua New Guinea, and East Timor are to today's centers in Asia. Haiti and Cuba remained as they were throughout America's dominance of the 20th century, and the Western hemisphere even before that.

Will there be more intervention? It seems unlikely, as most of these places are pretty far removed and will only become targeted if they cause problems. The US only went into Haiti and Cuba on very limited levels when the instability could was affecting it. The peoples of the Balkans were basically left to kill themselves until the 1990s, and even then NATO only picked up the pieces after all was said and done.

The best hope for intervention in any of these places is a new Cold War. Countries won't commit collectively to help these places out, but if they see their interests threatened by another competing power, they may commit more.
Just An Australian
February 4, 2009
11:14 am
The various Pacific Islands are in economic tough times. For many decades, their primary income has been expatriates sending money home, and tourism. This means that they are pretty beholden to the Pacfic Rim powers - mainly Australia and New Zealand (more the latter). For this reason, they'll never get too far out of line.
Curzon
February 4, 2009
11:19 am
What about Fiji? Or the Solomons? Both seem pretty out of line to me...

Yes, historically they've been sustenance communities, thrust into modern technology, and are unlikely to ever seen any real growth except what they can squeeze out through tourism.

As for New Zealand, as I was writing just days ago, the "Realm" of New Zealand is in fact enormous.
Rommel
February 4, 2009
3:35 pm
Bypassed. Geopolitical fly-over country.
Machiavelli's Cat
February 4, 2009
7:16 pm
Well, with the appointment of Anne-Marie Slaughter to director of policy planning at state, I think we'll see a fair bit more multilateralism and possibly more interventionism in terms of fragile states....
Just An Australian
February 4, 2009
8:02 pm
Agree that Fiji and Solomons are out of line - but not too far. Fiji has this weird mostly bloodless coup thing going on, where the latest coup leader says his primary motivation is to see former coup leaders properly prosecuted for leading coups...? But business goes on as usual, mainly. The Fijians are nice laid-back people, I think that is the main reason.
Solomons is more serious, I think. But as I said, they won't get *too far* out of line - mainly, that is inept as they get, they won't go exporting trouble.