Last week in Cape Town, South Africa, I was a keynote speaker at the massive Mining Indaba conference, the premier annual gathering of global extractive companies involved in Africa's dominant economic sector. And the difference between the many military and aid conferences I've attended on Africa and this international commodities convention in Africa was telling. If you think most Americans now obsess over a "rising" China, you should know that we take a backseat to the Africans on this score. But whereas we often see China's rise as a potential threat, Africans see it as an opportunity, and China's "positive resource alliance" -- as another speaker put it -- is the primary reason why.

Continue reading this week's New Rules column at WPR.

POST: Pentagon Review Highlights Major Shift in Thinking, The Slatest, Feb. 1, 2010

Excerpt:

The Pentagon will release a new strategic outlook today that highlights a dramatic shift in how the U.S. military plans for war. For nearly a quarter-century, the Pentagon has built its strategy around a hypothetical situation that involved two conventional wars in two different locations. But, faced with a changing reality, the new hypothetical will involve a host of enemies, both physical and virtual. Military planners will now build a strategy and style of fighting that takes terrorism and cyber attacks into consideration. "It is no longer appropriate to speak of major regional conflicts as the sole or even primary template for sizing, shaping or evaluating U.S. forces," the document says. The last major review, according to CNN, was released in 2006 and "was heavily focused on the threat of a large-scale conventional war with China and that country's saber rattling over Taiwan." Obviously, things have changed in the past four years. China is still considered a threat, but, should a conflict escalate, it will likely be anything but conventional. The new review also takes the environment into account by considering climate changes; the review "suggests the military will have to plan on operations where climate (rising sea levels, reduced ice in the Arctic) would be a factor in planning," CNN reported.

Long time coming, but very nice to see.

(Thanks: Rich Jefferson)

Plus this excerpt from the QDR sent in by Aaron Krizik:

Just as maintaining America's enduring defense alliances and relationships abroad is a central facet of statecraft, so too is the need to continue improving the Department of Defense's cooperation with other U.S. departments and agencies. Years of war have proven how important it is for America's civilian agencies to possess the resources and authorities needed to operate alongside the U.S. Armed Forces during complex contingencies at home and abroad. As our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, sustainable outcomes require civilian development and governance experts who can help build local civilian capacity. Although the U.S. military can and should have the expertise and capacity to conduct these activities, civilian leadership of humanitarian assistance, development, and governance is essential. The Department will retain capabilities designed to support civilian authorities as needed. A strong and adequately resourced cadre of civilians organized and trained to operate alongside or in lieu of U.S. military personnel during a variety of possible contingencies is an important investment for the nation's security. This is an urgent requirement for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will remain an enduring need in the future security environment--both to prevent crises and to respond to them.

The SysAdmin is being built, bit by bit in both the public and private sectors (and please, that's not a veiled reference to private security companies; never think so small or narrowly), because the operating environment, which I dubbed the Non-Integrated Gap, simply continues to demand it.

ARTICLE: Haitians to Africa? Senegal resettlement plans gain steam, By Scott Baldauf, Christian Science Monitor,February 2, 2010

Oddly enough, I read this piece while in Dakar, Senegal.

Not sure how realistic it is, but it fits with the harsh reality that Port au Prince seriously needs to be depopulated for a while, given the widespread damage.

And yes, I am a true bragabond.

EURASIA INSIGHT: AFGHANISTAN: WASHINGTON EXPLORING CHINESE RE-SUPPLY ROUTE, By Deirdre Tynan, EurasiaNet.org, 2/02/10

Nice if this could sneak through despite all the tough-talk posturing in both DC and Beijing right now.

It would be a wonderfully grown-up thing for both sides.

(Via WPR's Media Roundup)

UNITED STATES: "Integrated, but irked: The tensions of being Muslim and American," by Lexington, The Economist, 9 January 2010.

The good news: American Muslims are, on average, more likely than the rest of America to have jobs and be professionals. They're also a lot more satisfied with this lives than their European counterparts.

But when you have the Michael Savages of America describing the rising numbers of Muslims in our country as "throat slitters ... clawing at the gate," there's little surprise that the average American Muslim lives with some serious unease.

UNITED STATES: "Latinos and American politics: Power in numbers; Hispanics, long under-represented as voters, are becoming political kingmakers," The Economist, 9 January 2010.

Piece accurately notes that the growing heft of Hispanic legislators is already being felt in two of our biggest states: Texas and California. These two offer distinct previews of what will happen on a national level.

The growth of Hispanics, along with the Boomers aging out, are the two biggest demographic trends going on inside America, says The Economist. Hard to deny.

For now, Hispanics "punch below their weight," unlike African-Americans. But major change is coming. The piece notes that Obama's win was decisively influenced by Hispanics, a first in presidential elections. They voted for him 2-to-1 over McCain. Kingmaker status seems inevitable, and once it comes, just wait for America to reopen the Union for new membership.

BRIEFING: "Israel and Iran: The gathering storm; As Israel pushes for sanctions against Iran, it also mulls options for war," The Economist, 9 January 2010.

Starts with the usual Osiraq imagery, or when Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. As noted here many times, Iran does not present that simple and easy-to-access target profile, having distributed and buried its assets underground and deep below mountains.

But Israel publicly reckons that Iran is about a year away from weaponizing, so the temptation for signaling, no matter how ineffective the outcome may be, is substantial and understandable.

Most estimates are that a lengthy bombing course would definitely set Iran back 1-2 years.

A good description of Israel's unease:

Israel thus finds itself in a paradoxical state: more secure for now, but acutely anxious about the future; closer than ever to some Arab regimes because of a perceived common threat from Iran and its radical allies, yet more demonized by its Western friends. Israelis see a global campaign of "delegitimization" akin to efforts to isolate white-ruled South Africa.

Will bombing make this situation any better? Hard to see, especially when you know Iran will simply re-double its efforts, ramp up its threatening rhetoric and publicize every tiny advance as it moves again toward weaponization, which, this time, Tehran will be highly incentivized to put out in the open for all to see.

Of course, all this focus provides the excuse for Israel to resist any efforts at progressing with the Palestinians, another dynamic that feeds its global demonization.

Hard to see anything to be optimistic about here in the short run. Nonetheless, I still foresee Iran's acquisition of nukes, along with similar subsequent efforts by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as the next logical negotiating point that will most definitely draw in all the relevant outside great powers in a concerted effort to stabilize the situation. I honestly think everything that comes before that inflection point will be meaningless--if tumultuous and dangerous and deadly. I just don't see any big opening possibility for Obama to step through. This die seems decidedly cast, unless the Green Movement succeeds in some dramatic way inside Iran, something I don't see happening in time even as I harbor some significant hopes in that direction.

BRIEFING: "Iran and its region: A supreme leader at bay; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei faces a growing barrage of opposition. Now prominent intellectuals are adding their voices to the fray," The Economist, 9 January 2010.

The Supreme Leader seems politically adept at pissing off just about everyone over the past several months: not doing enough fast enough to stem the opposition, according to the conservatives, and being a complete bastard who's allowed the Revolutionary Guard to execute a putsch and brutal repression of the movement, according to would-be reformists and moderates.

The increasing marginalization of the Supreme Leader, in my mind, has always been a goal of the Guard and Ahmadinejad, who has sought from the start to bolster the presidency and build a strong single-party state that extends its control increasingly over the economy. The SL is a useful idiot in this regard, but also, under the right conditions, a decent bargaining chip for the Guard in placating popular demands for change, especially as the clerics and some portion of the faithful move into opposition mode.

Having survived more than two decades at the top of Iran's power structure, Mr. Khamenei is now looking acutely uncomfortable. By refusing to countenance a fresh election in the aftermath of the June poll, he turned much of the ire that was being directed against his president against himself. As recently as a few months ago, few Tehranis would have dared whisper "Death to Khamenei." Not what slogan has become commonplace.

Another key point raised in the piece: Iranians in general are less convinced that democracy is the answer but are decidedly driven by traditional notions of a "just ruler."

And that's the image that Khamenei is losing.

GLOBAL INSIGHT: "Central plot of China-US ties faces off-stage challenge," by James Kynge, Financial Times, 8 January 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "Chinese demand drives regional recovery," by Kevin Brown and Justine Lau, Financial Times, 8 January 2010.

FINANCE AND ECONOMICS: "China's export prospects: Fear of the dragon; China's share of world markets increased during the recession. It will keep rising," The Economist, 9 January 2010.

Kynge's argument: everyone says the West's need to reduce its demand of Chinese goods forces Beijing to redirect toward domestic consumption, but China's export engine has already redirected to Asia and other BRICs. While he doesn't offer any details of those trade flows, the argument seems reasonable enough even as I'm suspicious that a lot of that new trade flow is locked-in long-term commodities agreements (like with Brazil).

The unmentioned reality here: China's pegging to the dollar has kept its currency unrealistically cheap, so that redirect of exports has come at a stiffer price for China's partners, who end up paying more for the same flow or getting less in return for the same exports.

The Economist notes that while American imports from China have fallen as an absolute amount, our imports from the rest of the world have fallen even faster, meaning now China's share of U.S. imports is higher than it's ever been at 19%. That means, instead of accounting for one-third of our trade deficit in the past, now China represents roughly half.

China's share of world trade is also heading up, looking to reach 12% by 2014 according to the IMF. By contrast, kingpin America controlled 18% of world trade in the early 1950s and now stands at 8%. For China to continue hitting the lucky 8% growth goal every year, if its remains as dependent on trade as it is today, its share of global trade would need to reach 17% by 2020, again according to the IMF.

Upshot of all these numbers? Global resistance to China's currency and trade practices is only likely to grow across this decade. That means plenty of tension, lots of standoffs, and some substantial "blinking" by Beijing unless it wants to trigger some serious retaliation.

Do I consider all these dynamics a step backward for globalization? Hardly. You can't have all this rising connectivity without tension, because it demands change--especially domestic change--from participants that's plenty scary.

WORLD NEWS: "Gates fears pressure on health aid," by Andrew Jack, Financial Times, 25 January 2010.

Gates worries that donor focus on climate change will shortchange health efforts inside the world's developing regions, or what I call the Gap.

Of course, Gates himself is heavy into such investments.

Apparently his foundation is catching guff for not pushing more money in the direction of climate change mitigation.

PERISCOPE: "China Puts the World Off Balance," by Minxin Pei, Newsweek, 1 February 2010.

Bits and pieces: "habitual free rider," "refusal to strengthen is currency," "rebuffed the West's call for ...."

China's constant reply: low per capita income, which is fair enough at $3,500--more or less.

But the key line: "The more likely explanation for the country's obstreperousness is that despite its rise, China is no more comfortable with the Western-led international system now than it was 10 years ago."

Not surprisingly, basically the same leadership is in place: Hu and Wen were clearly ascendant back in 2000, and they're wrapping up their rule now. Classic homebodies who didn't travel abroad for their tertiary education, due to the Cultural Revolution, they remain as tone-deaf diplomatically today as they were back when they started. It is simply not in their nature.

Yes, the PRC continues to reject democracy and human rights, but it still accepts U.S. leadership as an enduring reality, and it'll remain that way so long as China's self-definition makes it too unappealing to the advanced economies of the Core.

Here I agree with Pei a lot:

Yet the days when China can have it both ways--freeload on global public goods while enjoying international respect--are about to end. Disillusionment with its self-serving policies is setting in.

As someone who plans AHEAD (!), I can catch a lot of crap for my vision not unfolding fast enough--as with China.

But my sense of timeframe remains constant: nothing to expect from the 4th generation of leaders (through 2012), some hope for the 5th (2012-2022), but most evolution expected once Hong Kong undergoes its self-selecting experiment (pushed off til the end of the decade) and the 6th generation (my-age people in their late 40s) start to be teed up around 2020. I expect this evolution toward pluralism (first factions within the Party, then slow divorce into recognizable competing parties) to find its consummation by around 2030, when China will hit the half-century mark since Deng's revolution, in line with my notion from Great Powers that single-party rule for about five decades after the "revolution" is approximately the norm (I date it at 64 years for the U.S, or only after Andrew Jackson "third term" in the form of Martin Van Buren, meaning the 1840 presidential election when Whigs and Democrats teed off rather evenly for the first time--in terms of popular appeal).

I expect the late 2020s and early 2030s to be a fascinating time. I'll be closing in on my mid-to-late-sixties.

I did not wear any of our Colts jerseys to the confirmation session for my son today, although I spotted plenty of jerseys at mass. After the championship game, I was defintely invested for all the same reasons why I've been married since 1986: Vonne was born in Indiana and it mattered plenty to her.

So yeah, we had all the widescreens tuned, and after I did all the floors in the house and worked out, I was wearing my Harrison #88 and in the home theater, just refurbished with a new lamp for the InFocus HD projector (don't ask the price).

After the first quarter, it felt just fine, like any good Colt victory, and I was feeling very positive for Peyton, who deserves everything he gets.

But it did not happen, and it did not happen in such a Favre-like way: giving away the game on an INT-TD-return.

Needless to say I am even more bonded to my AFC mistress by this pain. Vonne slapped me on the shoulder after the return and said, "Now, we'll move up even faster on the waiting list for season tickets!?

Of course I love this woman!

And it does feel good to contemplate staying here longer than expected. I do love this house, and I do love this family. And now that I know that Indiana is not necessarily a cursed physical location for me (post sinus surgery), I am happy enough contemplating staying longer, especially since my Pack is on sked to show up here for the 2012 SB in Indy!

But it does hurt.

Not like the Pack loss to Denver, but the household is sad.

My younger son and I had to immediately switch to a first season "Lost" episode to clear our palates, and check out Kate's outfit on Disc 5.

I am happy for NOLA though. The team delivered me from Farve and, as such, they deserve everything they dare grasp. Congrats to the Saints.

Beyond all this, I do suspect we've just witnessed an historic Super Bowl. Remember, this is the season of the Belichick 4th-and-2 go-for-it. Consider the Saints go-for-broke at the end of the first half and then the on-side to start the second. I do believe we're seeing the early onset of the no-punt NFL--already brewing in the HS and college game.

And I think this game will be perceived as a turning point in NFL history.

+ HG's WORLD linked The Fallacy of an Increasingly Dangerous World.
+ And linked Why China Will Not Bury America.

+ Judah Grunstein linked The Austin Accords of March, 2031.

+ China Law Blog linked Tin ear on Taiwan.

+ Vidney (Spanish-language YouTube?) has the Middlebury Brief.

+ Chuck Baldwin recommends reading PNM.

+ Mark Hudziak says Tom's weblog is one of the 'Three Top Websites for Analysis of Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, and National Security Issues in Today's World'.

ARTICLE: Selling South Korea, By B. J. Lee, Newsweek, Jan 29, 2010

Continuing my theme that the great powers with the most interesting foreign policy agendas are classic Seam States (e.g., Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia), here's a nice exploration of the globalizing ambition that is South Korea.

(Thanks: Jeff Jennings)

ARTICLE: As China Rises, Fears Grow on Whether Boom Can Endure, By MICHAEL WINES, New York Times, January 11, 2010

You want to talk about a flood? How about all the stories suddenly appearing on the Chinese bubble, unsustainable development, "cracks in the facade," a model straining at its growing limits, etc?

No, China has not redefined capitalism or development. As a single-party state, it has simply traversed, command-style, the extensive period of easy growth, where more, More, MORE is all you need for the lucky 8 percent growth every year.

Will it work forever? No way. The intensive stuff is based on innovation, and governments cannot direct that, nor control the innovators.

So the crash(es) will inevitably arrive, and all the toxic, hidden debts will need to be paid. And no, the Party will not survive the process in its current form--or dominance.

The better the Party plans for that reality, the less the transition will hurt. But the goofy bragging you read in party pubs is just embarrassingly stupid--like an 18-year-old thinking he's conquered the world and all wisdom.

ARTICLE: Being Clooney: Not as Easy as It Looks, By TERRENCE RAFFERTY, New York Times, January 8, 2010

The piece I've been waiting to read on Clooney for several years now, having just watched "Michael Clayton" again recently at home and thinking the very same thing about the ending.

It is nice to have a few true movie stars around to enjoy, along with all the Actors! (And I do deeply enjoy the Depps and Day-Lewises of the world.)

Recently reading a great bio of James Stewart, it made me think that Clooney is one of the few stars today who would have thrived in the old studio system as Stewart did--sort of (only to find himself more when he went independent in the 1950s and plowed a lot of the same character types that Clooney is working now).

ARTICLE: We can broker peace with the Taleban, says Turkey, By Michael Binyon, (London) Times, January 13, 2010

I put a lot more stock in this scenario than anything the Obama administration has so far offered.

I wish Turkey continued ambition and perseverance.

(Thanks: Jeffrey Itell)

POST: Share of World GDP 1969-2009, By jccavalcanti, November 21, 2009

Fascinating chart that shows distinctly that Asia's rise has not come at America's expense, but rather that of Europe. Meanwhile, the Gap-heavy LATAM and Africa and Middle East remain stagnant, in terms of global GDP shares.

ARTICLE: Mergers to increase in 2010, By Brendan Ryan, miningmx.com, 04 Feb 2010

Here's the part about Tom:

He described a earlier presentation to the conference by Enterra Solutions MD Thomas Barnett on growing Chinese influence in Africa as, "a simplified picture from a United States perspective. I don't agree with Barnett's scenario of China taking over the world."

Tom says:

If that's all he took from my presentation, then "simplified" is a good term for his thinking.

Point to take away: he felt threatened enough by my impact with the audience that needed to cite it as a marker from which to distance himself.

People familiar with my work know I don't say anything close to China "taking over the world." I simply say that Asians are the natural networkers for globalization going forward. You can deal with reality or you can run from it.

But I am thrilled to hear about my MD. Now I can write scripts for myself!

[Sean here: Tom makes a weak joke here, based on his recent medical issues and lifelong jealously over his younger brother's MD-PhD; MD here stands for managing director]

More crudely put (and I've said this in Beijing every chance I've received), all this talk about China taking over anything is complete nonsense. At the end of the day, the guy with the biggest gun wins, and when similar guns are fielded, the guy who's more comfortable taking serious chances wins.

China is nowhere near having a gun similar to our own, and as for willingness to use, we're talking boys-to-men in comparison. China can't take chances in foreign policy, much less national security (i.e., war) because if the Party screws up, it has no capacity to swap out bad leadership for good, something we call "throwing the bums out." The GOP wastes a lot of blood and treasure and we throw them out. If the Dems are perceived as doing the same, we'll throw them out soon enough. Meanwhile, the American system continues.

If the CCP screws up anything, who gets thrown out? Because nobody in Beijing can answer that question, expect the Chinese to remain all talk and no serious action so long as the Party rules.

So no, China won't be taking over anything, despite the current hype. Envelopes stuffed with cash just won't get it done.

POST: Chinese Man Spends 35K For 'Obedient' Vietnamese Wife, by Fauna, ChinaSMACK, January 31, 2010

Right out of "Great Powers": the Chinese men simply go abroad to marry a broad.

OMG! Men are actually willing to do that?

Damn! Another "inevitable" war (this time scheduled by doofus demographers) canceled.

As for the price, remember to divide the number by seven to get the dollar amount, so you're only talking $5k, or about a year and a half of average income. About what American males are told by jewelry companies that they should be paying for an engagement ring--meaning fairly normal.

Plus, as reader Wayne Yin points out:

Because of many years of war, Vietnam's male-to-female ratio is 3:5 and there are many girls willing to marry abroad to other countries...

so in vietnam's case, it's a win-win.
and anthropologically speaking, rather than favoring sons, in vietnam it may be more fortunate to have daughters you can marry out to foreigners...

NEWS ANALYSIS: U.S. Arms for Taiwan Send Beijing a Message, By HELENE COOPER, New York Times, January 31, 2010

Ah well, if this is all designed to make Obama and his team seem tough, then it's okay!

But here's the problem: there's little-to-no good reason to expect that China will respond to such signaling by giving us what we wanted any more than the "softer" approach did.

We no longer live in a world where we get to boss around rising China, no matter our vector.

Yes, Obama will seem "tough," but his term will remain unstained by serious accomplishments.

Two to tango, just one to seem "tough."

(Via WPR's Media Roundup)

ARTICLE: U.S. and China Face Off in the Sulu Sea: The Role of the International Contact Group for Mindanao (.doc file), By Ishak Mastura, January 27, 2010

Not bad article for information. The "face off" bit is a bit much: this is really about economic competition and mutual desire to extend control collectively over poorly governed maritime space.

The "soft underbelly" baloney is goofy. There is no "softness" here and the "underbelly" notion is simply a reflection of north-south orientation. Countries are not human bodies.

But academics--just like journalists--always want to jack things up a bit, proving the need for the piece. Businessmen don't use "face off" terminology, but the military instinctively employs such macho-BS terms.

Simply put, there is a maritime frontier that needs integration. Everybody who's big and operating in the region seeks to do that. When they bump into each other and act tough, it's almost exclusively about perceived economic purview, and whenever gov/mil types bump into that reality, they man-up unnecessarily. In reality, the resulting business clime is always about splitting the difference OVER some zero-sum competition.

OP-ED: Avoiding Another Great Game, By ASHOK K. MEHTA, Wall Street Journal, JANUARY 11, 2010

As visions of ongoing and potential improvement go, this one is most comforting to read. Underestimating India is a bad habit that I am sometimes guilty of.

(Thanks: Our man in Kabul)

ARTICLE: Survey: Half of China's moms-to-be have C-sections, AP, 1/12/2010

Seems to dovetail with my oft-made observation that modernity changes a society more than a society customizes it in return, meaning "blank-ian values," no matter what which one seems most intimidating right now, ultimately never lives up to its hype as "unchanging."

(Thanks: Terry Collier)