Thomas Barnett and Michael Klare: Analysis of the Views

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Core and Gap
Energy and Natural Resources
Realist and Liberal Paradigms
Civilizations and the Triumph of Western Ideologies
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

At the time of globalization, it can be stated the classification of the world after the end of the cold war is strikingly different. The ideologies of east and west, capitalist and communist countries can be seen as outdated. In that regard, several authors provided different views on new classifications of the world. The differences in such views are based, not only on particular countries and/or parts of the world, but also on different criteria used in classification as well. Each classification can be used to explain the most important events that occurred after the end of the cold war. Two of the views of the world order that gained recognition are the ideas of Thomas Barnett, in which the famous strategist explains the strategies of new warfare, and Michael Klare, the author of the book Rising Powers, Shrinking Plane, for whom the criteria of the new classification are energy. The present paper will attempt to explain the views provided by both authors, comparing them to theories of international relations as well as the works of other political scientists. The paper states the presented views, of both Barnett and Klare are complementary to each other, rather than substitutes, and they can be used to explain different aspects of the same subject.

Core and Gap

Barnett’s lecture on the Pentagon’s New Map did not devote time to explaining the classification of the world system, rather than explaining the role the United States should have in it. Nevertheless, Barnett provided a simple system of classification, which is based on the degree of globalization. Simply put, United States along with other developed countries represents what Barnett likes to call the Core, i.e. globalized parts of the world, and the non-globalized parts of the world – the gap. Examples of the gap can be seen through countries with which the United States went into wars, e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq, or politically corrupt countries (Barnett video). Following the aforementioned description, other countries might include North Korea, which was mentioned by Barnett, and Iran, which was not.

Energy and Natural Resources

If the distinction provided by Barnett to classify the core and the gap are solely based on globalization and the corruption of the political system, the classification provided in Michael Klare is based on natural resources, namely energy resources. Unlike Barnett, whose position is more or less positive in his classification, with the “Leviathan force” the United States has, in the classification of Klare the position of the United States is quite pessimistic, considering the growing competition in such aspect. According to Klare, the criteria of energy resources are not about having such, but rather about controlling them (Klare). Such classification can complement the classification provided by Barnett, in which the United States enters into warfare with countries with politically corrupt systems. The complementary element, in that regard, can be rephrased with the United States entering into warfare if there is a possibility of controlling energy resources, which could not be reached peacefully.

Realist and Liberal Paradigms

The implication of both classifications share mutual elements, and at the same time might differ in others. Understanding both can be facilitated in the light of the theories of international relations. Taking the relist paradigm, which mainly states that international relations are ruled in anarchy, where “international organizations in the contemporary era primarily reflect the interests of the states that create them” (D’Anieri 63). The liberal paradigm, on the other hand, puts an emphasis on institutionalism, rather than states. Similar to realism in that cooperation results from “the rational pursuit of self-interest” liberalism states that cooperation is the best or the only way for states to gain their goals (D’Anieri 78). Reflection of both theories can be seen in the classifications of Barnett and Klare. Taking the realist paradigm, the organizations are mainly created by the core and reflect the interest of the globalized part of the world. Looking at the recent coalitions that were created during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the coalitions that were created consisted primarily of core countries. The outcome in such scenario might be seen through countries gradually joining the globalized part of the world, the issue of security as one of the dilemmas in the realist paradigm will persist until the there are no gap countries in the world. In that regard, the department of system administrators proposed by Barnett, will make sure that after a regime was overthrown, the country is institutionalized according to the rules states (Arnett video). What comes next, i.e. with the world consisting mainly of core countries, is a reflection of the liberal paradigm, where cooperation will be made in accordance to self-interest pursuit. The core of that self-interest, in that regard, is explained by Klare, i.e. energy resources. It will be more beneficial for countries to cooperate in pursuit of their energy interests. If there are still gap countries around, then warfare it is. Only core countries are left, then, it is cooperation within the paradigms of liberalism. An example of the latter can be seen through the cooperation between China and Russia, indicated in Klare’s book, where both countries collaborated under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Civilizations and the Triumph of Western Ideologies

It should be noted that other theories such as Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” or Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History” might conform to both classifications, although from different perspectives. Huntington’s model proposes including civilizations as a criterion for classification. In that regard, such factor is predicted to contribute to the occurrence of conflicts, where “the most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating… civilizations” (Huntington). Thus, it should be mentioned that the gap countries mentioned in Barnett are differing in civilization from the countries with which they had conflicts, the United States in this case. The choice of countries can be also demonstrated in Klare’s work, where some of the countries which belong to the gap sections are not conflicting with west, a fact that can be explained by the fact that the energy resources of such countries are already controlled by a core country. The argument that the liberal paradigm is likely to be in use when most countries become core can be reflected in Fukuyama’s work, where he argued that “the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government” (Fukuyama). Accordingly, Fukuyama indicated that the Western idea will be triumphant. The latter accordingly answers the question of who is the winner in the clash of civilizations aspect. It should be noted that the ideas brought by Barnett, proposing system administrators, largely imply bringing western values to the society, especially if the values of the country which was taken over contradict Western values, at least to a degree that prevents pursuing self-interests, which as explained in Klare’s work are related to controlling energy resources.

Klare’s and Barnett’s views can be seen as a pattern, in which Klare’s energy criteria can be used as an explanation of the tendency in Barnett’s model, which globalizing gap countries. Although Barnett focused only on the United States in his lecture, most of his findings can be applied to other countries as well. A differentiation might exist only in the way the military force of other countries compares to the “leviathan” force of the United States.

Conclusion

The present paper provided an explanation of the classification systems introduced by Thomas Barnett, in his lecture on the Pentagon’s new map, and Michael Klare in his book Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet. The paper contrasted both ideas comparing them with the theories of international relations, namely the realist and liberal paradigms. Additionally, the both classification systems were expanded through an overview of the works of Huntington and Fukuyama. It can be concluded that both models, although focusing on different aspects are complementary to each other, and at the same time conform to classical theories and works of other political scientists. Such conformance states that a conflict will persist until all countries will join globalization, in which the liberal ideology will persist, governing cooperation in controlling energy resources. Until that happens conflicts are inevitable between contrasting civilizations in which energy resources are not controlled.

Works Cited

D’Anieri, Paul J. International Politics : Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Fukuyama, Francis. “The End of History?” Conflict after the Cold War : Arguments on Causes of War and Peace. Ed. Betts, Richard K. 3rd ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print.

Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Conflict after the Cold War : Arguments on Causes of War and Peace. Ed. Betts, Richard K. 3rd ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print.

Klare, Michael T. Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet : The New Geopolitics of Energy. 1st ed. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!