May 3, 2008
Books essay: The levellers
Viewed from the United States, there are three ways of looking at the rise of China and India: as an illusion, as a threat or as an opportunity. Fareed Zakaria is an optimist.
Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, came to the US as an 18-year-old student from India. But, in many ways, this is a very American book - both in its optimism and in its determination to leave the reader with useful lessons.
Much of the material in The Post-American World will be well known to anyone with a passing interest in international affairs: the stunning economic growth in Asia; the challenge to America’s post cold-war hegemony; the parallels between modern America and the British empire. Zakaria tells this story in a convincing and entertaining way. But it is familiar stuff.
The novel feature of Zakaria’s book is its effort to argue that “the rise of the rest” need not entail the decline of the US.
To illustrate his point, he draws an analogy with tennis. A generation ago, American players dominated the US Open. Now they have to share the prizes with players from other nations. This does not mean that Americans have suddenly got worse at tennis. It is just that others have learnt how to play the game.
Zakaria makes the same point about economics. In recent years, the world’s biggest stock-market flotations have not involved American companies. This does not mean that America is getting poorer - just that other countries are getting richer.
Relative decline can - of course - still be a painful and dangerous condition. But Zakaria believes that the US can still be the world’s leading nation for many years to come - if it just learns to play its hand more intelligently. America’s intrinsic strengths in areas such as higher education and technology - combined with the weaknesses and rivalries of the emerging powers - should allow the US to mould the rules of the global game in ways that will protect and foster American interests.
Above all, America should seek to bind new powers like China into the international system, rather than constructing new alliances to contain them. Zakaria suggests that instead of being a lone ranger, the US should learn to think of itself as a chairman of the board.
Many of the points that Zakaria makes are eminently sensible. The US should not panic about the rise of new powers; the “war on terror” should no longer be the centrepiece of American foreign policy; Americans should be more aware of the views and expertise of foreigners; the US should avoid becoming the General Motors of nations - so obsessed by domestic concerns that it loses sight of revolutionary innovations overseas.
Other parts of Zakaria’s book are less convincing. He seems to regard the democratic political systems of both India and the US as a bit of a burden - leading to dumb debates and bad decisions. It may indeed be true that Chinese technocrats are better able to take a long-term view of the challenges facing their nation. But the biggest of these challenges - and one that the Chinese are no closer to solving - is finding a system that can deliver long-term political stability and legitimacy. In India and the US, this is known as democracy.
There are also bigger question marks over Zakaria’s thesis. His book was clearly drafted before the credit crunch - and some of its optimism about the global economy no longer rings entirely true. Some sentences jar, such as “the world is swimming in capital”.
More broadly, Zakaria may be too sanguine about the ease with which new powers - and, in particular, China - can be accommodated in the international system. At various points in his book, he notes the strength of resurgent Chinese nationalism. But he shrinks from concluding that China may in the end seek to re-shape its international environment in ways that America will not like - and cannot control.
A book on ‘international relations’:
Another yarn. another yawn.
Posted by: RCS | May 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this commentWell I bought the book and I am now reading it. It is written in a highly readable style….and I recommend the book. His interview with Charlie Rose prompted the buy. Regarding the interview…. I was happy to hear him defend President Carter’s recent actions in the Middle East and his remarks that this Presidential campaign discussions of trade and immigration are of great concern, were music to my hears. It is difficult to disagree with his basic thesis. The book is more than a word of warning to the disturbing protectionist policies and China bashing taking hold in the Democratic party …especially Hillary’s campaign…I suppose she is giving many Americans what they want to hear…it is very disturbing that so many Americans want to hear such drivel as what Hillary is mouthing…and it is because so Americans want to hear this nonsense, that I am left with being not so optismistic about America’s future at the moment….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 4th, 2008 at 8:18 pm | Report this commentThe “mother of all exports” and the strongest of all commodities is ‘The American way of life;’ new Chinese and emerging nouveau riche in the sub-continent are styled in unabashed US consumerism. US is creating a huge market outside the US; in a region of billion people who depend on US products, like Starbucks for their coffee and big Mac for their lunch, sushi are out and the US empire has done what no one else has ever done - create a billion new consumers without taking their retirement responsibilities. America in return by default is building ‘millions’ of new Americans everyday who like their way of life but perhaps may disagree with their politics. It is all about creating “markets and consumers” prosperous enough to pay for the future intellectual rights of US corporatism.
Henry Ford used to say that he would only succeed if his workers can purchase the cars he makes. In similar vein, American dominance is sealed by making new converts globally who get addicted to products of the US. That cannot happen if China and India stay poor; the prosperity of China and India helps no one more than the US, since their savings are ploughed back into the US, and the rising middle class in India and China are the captive audiences of America’s corporate global reach. The new middle class is more American than Americans themselves; they love Al-Pacino and Hollywood; they take popcorns and use Microsoft. Imagine this: instead of 260 million domestic consumers, American corporations are looking at 1,000,000,000 by the end of this decade. The average revenue per consumer is a mind-boggling 500 US $ per month; add this consumption on movies, communications and medicines, and you could easily see where is Dow and NASDAQ heading in the next decade.
It is naive to assume that Chinese or Asians will impact the global reserve currency. Reserve currency status for a foreseeable future will depend on who guarantees world peace, with 500 billion$ plus budget it is USA only. Withdrawal of funds from treasury bills is just half-truths the liquidity arising from such withdrawals has no place for parking; overheating is a challenge that Chinese are still facing, the same with India. The new global reserves of BRICs 2 trillion-plus billons has created a new middle class that loves American values although US-bashing may be a common slogan after a dose of Lipitor, a big meal at Taco bell and double cream Mocha cold from Starbucks. Every time the new rich middle class steps into the new world the tills at the US corporate in US start ringing; for every cent the new generation spends there is a cent of royalty for US corporations.
From an article I wrote in 2005.. WHY THE WORLD INVESTS ITS ENTIRE SAVINGS IN US?
Posted by: Iqbal Latif | May 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am | Report this commenthttp://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/9450
Sep 7, 2005
“He seems to regard the democratic political systems of both India and the US as a bit of a burden - leading to dumb debates and bad decisions.”
I cannot opine about India, but the crisis of American democracy is very real.
A system run by special interest groups that periodically allows the citizens to vote for people that those groups choose and a media that stifles serious debate, can make a system like the Chinese, where competent people, in touch with reality on the ground, take long term decisions based on a general consensus, look very good.
Posted by: David Seaton | May 5th, 2008 at 9:32 am | Report this commentGR:“He seems to regard the democratic political systems of both India and the US as a bit of a burden - leading to dumb debates and bad decisions.”
Well I finishe dthe book. That is not how I read his take on India at all. He praised its diversity and pointed out that the political power shift to regional and local politics is responsible in a large part for its robust economy , its decline in poverty,and helps to prevent the rise of a dictatorship …he somewhat bemoans a lack of a national agenda…but it seems to me that is not due to India’s diversity or strong regional politics but more due to lack of real leadership in any one individual or political party for the time being…he clearly sees US’s “vibrant society” as a potential role model for India…
On dealing with China..and the world in general, his assertion that US Foreign Policy should embrace “rules not narrow interests”, i.e., create a structure of practices and lofty values that emerging powers can agree with and yet thrive…so that as they become more powerful economically and more armed, they join and or remain part of an international community…
Both Bush-Cheney and Clinton administrations pursued narrow interests in Foreign Policy. This is a reflection of the average American’s state of mind and Bush and Clinton’s own limited priorities when leading the country. I was hoping Obama’s rise would be the antidote to this narrowness. I saw his appeal as a certain rebellion, i.e., a majority of age 45 and younger Americans (as this race is generational more than about race or gender) rebelling to looking at the world through a narrow lens…But those crafty Clintons are dragging us back into the mundane…and even “fear politics”.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this comment“…a system like the Chinese[’s], where competent people, in touch with reality on the ground, take long term decisions based on a general consensus…”
China’s leaders aren’t necessarily competent or in touch with reality. Read their rhetoric. Half of it is insane.
They have a large and often unruly population to control and placate. It is a more diverse society than many would have us believe, but it is given to bouts of xenophobic or anti-authoritarian mob rule. The government sails with the wind, then against it.
They are dictators. They do not base their decisions on consensus unless they absolutely have to.
As regards the book, don’t think I have time to read it. Sounds like more of the same. I seem to remember that much of the talk over the last 5-10 years has been about the coming of a truly multipolar world. I fail to see this guy’s unique selling point.
Posted by: James Kingdom | May 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am | Report this commentJames Kingdom:”As regards the book, don’t think I have time to read it. Sounds like more of the same. I seem to remember that much of the talk over the last 5-10 years has been about the coming of a truly multipolar world. I fail to see this guy’s unique selling point.”
Interesting point…as I said , I just read the book and I think it was written for an American audience. It is an important book for most Americans to read…on the whole, the US is not dealing well or feeling or behaving in a generous way to the “rise of the rest”!…which is a shame and perhaps a sign we are not as creative as we use to be….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm | Report this comment