9:57AM
WPR's The New Rules: A Look Ahead at the Geography of Global Security
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 9:57AM
As part of a “big think” forecast project commissioned by an intelligence community sponsor, I’ve begun to think about the future geography of global security. As often with this kind of project, I find myself falling into list-making mode as I contemplate slides for the brief. So here are nine big structural issues that I think any such presentation must include . . .
Read the entire column at World Politics Review.
tagged Africa, Asian integration, China, Latin America, Middle East, US, food, globalization, security | in WPR Column | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article
Africa, Asian integration, China, Latin America, Middle East, US, food, globalization, security | in WPR Column | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article 
Reader Comments (7)
This IARPA experiment is pretty close to what Wikistrat is trying to do. Is there any cooperation here?
#1 It cannot advance its economic domination of the region without accepting a U.S. security role. This is the security “tax” it pays for being a single-party state that none of its neighbors feels it can trust.
and later
#2 When the West leaves Afghanistan-Pakistan come 2014, India and China will have to step up and embrace the historical opportunity to create a stable modus vivendi in the region, perhaps by a concert of powers approach to security there
So how does China pull off #2 in the context of #1? Does this require the US to 'invest' in India as a counter-balance to China in Af-Pak?
dave
Richard,
Wikistrat is developing a business relationship with various elements of the IC, but the project described above is not IARPA - to my knowledge.
David,
I think we stay friendly with both, but friendlier enough with India to give it confidence that we have its back if things get testy with China in South or SE or Central Asia.
I need to comment on your understanding of the Asia-Africa relationship.
America hasn't had a coherent policy to deal with Sub-Saharan Africa since the late eighties, it still doesn't and deploying Africom will not in itself create a coherent policy. If American engagement was limited to rooting out Al Qaeda, then Africom will be a wonderful policy tool, but America's Africa policy is a confused fudge: we get the Al Qaeda bit, but the rest tries to balance the competing aims of Bono and the Energy Industry.
Sort out your Africa policy first. The Chinese have a simple policy whitepaper on Africa - even a high school student can understand what they want to do, and we see the results on the ground.
Secondly, we know you aren't very good at this sort of thing and we haven't forgotten your history in Africa. We observed the CIA's bungling of Angola, your misreading of the situation in Somalia in 1993 and your hasty withdrawal, the refusal to intervene in Rwanda and the bungling of the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia.
Please don't create expectations that you can't meet. We know that once you're satisfied with the number of terrorists killed, Africa will move once again to the back burner. Public opinion in America simply cannot sustain an ambitious policy.
What Africa needs from the US is a coherent strategy, a new generation of culturally aware and engaged diplomats and a plan for economic engagement. Africom is a nice "to have" but it is not essential and may even be counter-productive (again ask the French).
Smart diplomatic work will prevent competing ethnic groups from coming to blows. A military solution without the underlying diplomatic leg work could lead a temporary and fragile peace (Ivory Coast). (South Sudan was accomplished without Africom).
(The bungling of the Africom HQ issue shows that the US needs to do more diplomacy).
The really big problems in Africa like Nigeria, need diplomatic solutions. Merely equipping and training the local military "to deal with internal security challenges" translates to empowering one ethnic group over the others (since most African militaries are dominated by the ethnic group in power). We would also like to know who you think is best placed to speak for the United States on Boko Haram? Is it Carter Ham or ithe ambassador? (Hint: Nobody wants to be a second Pakistan). That may play well with American audiences, but seriously damages your credibility with the local audience (especially when 75 million of them are Muslim).
We need steady employment and we need emergency services. Emergency services are extremely important and they lead to wonderful photo-ops.
Africom is an emergency service organisation.
On the other hand, steady employment is less glamorous, more beneficial and drastically reduces the demand for emergency services. America should take economic engagement with Africa more seriously than security.
Tom, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) is conducting an experiment in crowd sourcing using some 500 scholars, private analysts, and others whose common thread is an interest in and some knowledge of Global Affairs. IARPA hopes to harness the collective intelligence produced by large groups of people to develop accurate strategic intelligence focused on foreign affairs. (Fosters.com)
This strikes me as what Wikistrat is doing as well so I was just curious.
Maduka,
Perfectly fine comment. Just doesn't contradict anything I said or the point of that segment.
Richard,
Helpful news to me.
NB: No one in Africa is going to take a new ambitious policy seriously if you can't work Haiti. If you have to wait for the Chinese to work Haiti, then the game is up. (It doesn't matter how many carrier battle groups you station off the Gulf of Guinea).