Barnett’s Trilogy is now complete. The link here provides the chapter headings for his new book (due out in Feb ’09) entitled Great Powers: America and the World After Bush. This is going to be his most ambitious work to date from the looks of it. If one is going to have a grand strategy, this is the one it seems to me. As I said yesterday, I’m increasingly questioning the place or I guess the viability of any grand strategy. So it’s not that I think Barnett is wrong within the parameters of a grand strategy based on the frame of globalization, global integration, and nation-states, in fact just the opposite. From within those parameters (social, strategic assumptions) I think he is unsurpassed. It’s that I question those parameters themselves.
I wonder if there was a time for this strategy, that being the Bush years. I guess part of me (not all) questions if in the wake of the wreckage to come though whether the playing field, even the game itself will have so changed that any recommendations based on the logic of a previous game/structural rule patterning, however brilliant (and trust his is nothing if not brilliant) will be simply no longer viable. Not wrong but simply not on the radar any longer. Outmoded–or maybe out-timed?.
I’m not saying I’ve gone whole hog in the other direction and given up on something the vision outlined in this book. i.e. I plan on reading the thing and if I’m wrong about the shape of things to come, then his strategy returns to de facto primary status in my book. If not, and things do radically shift, maybe it could be re-formulated, re-formatted, elements of it metabolized and re-directed to a different overall theory/paradigm. Who knows.
Update I: This post from Barnettt today is worth the read. He makes the strongest case possible that the current crisis demands the kind of strategy he lays out. The crux of which relies on moving China from selling stuff to the Old Core (in his terms, i.e. US, Canada, Europe). China can not become an overnight neo-US world consumer (nor would I want them to be even if they could which they can’t). So there is clear agreement across the board that the way forward is not to try to revive the fake US consumer economy of the last 30 years. Rather it’s a strategic partnership predicated on (in Barnett’s terms) a race to the bottom. That’s alot riding on China. Also alot riding on The so-called Beijing Consensus, mangaerial capitalism, neo-Keynesianism, Bad Samaritanism, whatever you want to call it.
Barnett links to this article in the Asian Times for background on this idea which states:
The goals of the partnership should be to:
Support China’s internal development by re-orienting export flows towards China and other emerging economies from the United States and other industrial countries. Transfer technologies and other expertise to the emerging economies. Make the emerging economies partners in the recovery of American asset prices.
Hang on to your hats, it’s gonna be a wild ride. There is no predicting (seems to me) what comes out on the other side.