"What Bush and Kerry Missed"
carrrnuttt
10-21-2004, 11:45 PM
October 25, 2004 U.S. Edition
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/images/newsweek.gif
What Bush and Kerry Missed
The West has long taken Asia for granted, seeing it as a stage where Great Power rivalries could be played out. But this too will change
The presidential debates are lauded for having been substantive and revealing. In particular, people have noted how rare it is to have a serious discussion about foreign policy these days. Except that we did not have a serious discussion about foreign policy. We had one about Iraq. And thousands of miles away, there is a new world coming into being—one that America is quite unprepared to handle.
There have been two great shifts in the international balance of power over the past 500 years. The first was the rise of Western Europe, which by the late 17th century had become the richest, most dynamic and expansionist part of the globe. The second was the rise of the United States of America, which between the Civil War and World War I became the single most important country in the world. Right now a trend of equal magnitude is taking place—the rise of Asia, led by China, which will fundamentally reshape the international landscape in the next few decades. For America, whether it is preserving jobs or security, recognizing and adapting to this new world order is key.
China's rise is no longer a matter of the future. It is already the fourth largest economy in the world, and it is growing at three to four times the rate of the first three. It is now the world's largest importer and exporter of many commodities, manufactured products and agricultural goods. It will soon be one of the largest exporters of capital, buying companies across the globe.
India is growing with impressive resilience and determination. And because of its size, it adds another huge weight to the Asian balance. East Asia has now been in a long boom for over 30 years. Asians are also the world's biggest savers, and their savings have financed the deficit spending of the United States. While there may be temporary reversals for a year or two, the long-term trend is clear.
Take an important example: one of the reasons that the United States has been able to dominate the global economy has been its awesome lead in science and technology. But here too, Asia is gaining strength. From computer science to biotechnology, one can see the beginnings of Asian science. It's at a very early stage, but again, the arrow is moving in only one direction. Physical Review, a top science journal, notes that the number of papers it publishes by Americans has been falling dramatically, from 61 percent in 1983 to 29 percent last year. The journal's editor told The New York Times that the main reason was China, which now submits 1,000 papers a year.
With economic growth comes cultural confidence and political assertiveness. The West has long taken Asia for granted, seeing it as an investment opportunity or a stage where Great Power rivalries could be played out, as in Vietnam and Korea. But this too will change. China and India are both proud and ancient civilizations. They are also large internal economies, not totally dependent on exports to the West. (In the wake of the East Asian crisis of 1997, all the East Asian tiger economies collapsed. But China and India grew solidly even when demand from the West dried up.) This rise of confidence is just beginning—it's clearly visible in trade negotiations‹and will only grow with time.
The United States will remain the most powerful country in the world. But the gap between it and these new Great Powers will slowly shrink. And to continue thriving, it will have to adjust to the rise of Asia. Asians should also hope that America focuses on this new world, because only the United States can ensure that Asia's rise happens in a way that is beneficial to both Asia and the world. Otherwise, the challenge from Asia could easily produce a retreat into fear, protectionism and nationalism all around.
In his novel "Cakes and Ale," Somerset Maugham derided the celebrated American expatriate Henry James for focusing his writings on upper-class life in Europe in the early 20th century. Maugham complained that James had "turned his back on one of the great events of the world's history, the rise of the United States, in order to report tittle-tattle at tea parties in English country houses."
The analogy is not exact. The war on terror is crucial, winning in Iraq is necessary, Middle East peace is important. But I wonder whether as we furiously debate these matters in America, we resemble Englishmen in the waning days of the British Empire. They vigorously debated the political and military situation in remote areas, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan (some things don't change). They tried mightily, and at great cost, to stabilize disorderly parts of the globe. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the United States of America was building its vast economic, technological and cultural might, which would soon dominate the world.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/images/newsweek.gif
What Bush and Kerry Missed
The West has long taken Asia for granted, seeing it as a stage where Great Power rivalries could be played out. But this too will change
The presidential debates are lauded for having been substantive and revealing. In particular, people have noted how rare it is to have a serious discussion about foreign policy these days. Except that we did not have a serious discussion about foreign policy. We had one about Iraq. And thousands of miles away, there is a new world coming into being—one that America is quite unprepared to handle.
There have been two great shifts in the international balance of power over the past 500 years. The first was the rise of Western Europe, which by the late 17th century had become the richest, most dynamic and expansionist part of the globe. The second was the rise of the United States of America, which between the Civil War and World War I became the single most important country in the world. Right now a trend of equal magnitude is taking place—the rise of Asia, led by China, which will fundamentally reshape the international landscape in the next few decades. For America, whether it is preserving jobs or security, recognizing and adapting to this new world order is key.
China's rise is no longer a matter of the future. It is already the fourth largest economy in the world, and it is growing at three to four times the rate of the first three. It is now the world's largest importer and exporter of many commodities, manufactured products and agricultural goods. It will soon be one of the largest exporters of capital, buying companies across the globe.
India is growing with impressive resilience and determination. And because of its size, it adds another huge weight to the Asian balance. East Asia has now been in a long boom for over 30 years. Asians are also the world's biggest savers, and their savings have financed the deficit spending of the United States. While there may be temporary reversals for a year or two, the long-term trend is clear.
Take an important example: one of the reasons that the United States has been able to dominate the global economy has been its awesome lead in science and technology. But here too, Asia is gaining strength. From computer science to biotechnology, one can see the beginnings of Asian science. It's at a very early stage, but again, the arrow is moving in only one direction. Physical Review, a top science journal, notes that the number of papers it publishes by Americans has been falling dramatically, from 61 percent in 1983 to 29 percent last year. The journal's editor told The New York Times that the main reason was China, which now submits 1,000 papers a year.
With economic growth comes cultural confidence and political assertiveness. The West has long taken Asia for granted, seeing it as an investment opportunity or a stage where Great Power rivalries could be played out, as in Vietnam and Korea. But this too will change. China and India are both proud and ancient civilizations. They are also large internal economies, not totally dependent on exports to the West. (In the wake of the East Asian crisis of 1997, all the East Asian tiger economies collapsed. But China and India grew solidly even when demand from the West dried up.) This rise of confidence is just beginning—it's clearly visible in trade negotiations‹and will only grow with time.
The United States will remain the most powerful country in the world. But the gap between it and these new Great Powers will slowly shrink. And to continue thriving, it will have to adjust to the rise of Asia. Asians should also hope that America focuses on this new world, because only the United States can ensure that Asia's rise happens in a way that is beneficial to both Asia and the world. Otherwise, the challenge from Asia could easily produce a retreat into fear, protectionism and nationalism all around.
In his novel "Cakes and Ale," Somerset Maugham derided the celebrated American expatriate Henry James for focusing his writings on upper-class life in Europe in the early 20th century. Maugham complained that James had "turned his back on one of the great events of the world's history, the rise of the United States, in order to report tittle-tattle at tea parties in English country houses."
The analogy is not exact. The war on terror is crucial, winning in Iraq is necessary, Middle East peace is important. But I wonder whether as we furiously debate these matters in America, we resemble Englishmen in the waning days of the British Empire. They vigorously debated the political and military situation in remote areas, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan (some things don't change). They tried mightily, and at great cost, to stabilize disorderly parts of the globe. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the United States of America was building its vast economic, technological and cultural might, which would soon dominate the world.
carrrnuttt
10-21-2004, 11:58 PM
Now, I have two questions:
- how many items do you currently own, and/or how many toys do you and your kids/siblings play with that say either "Made in China" or "Made in Taiwan"?
- how many technical/billing/inquiry calls have you made, where the other person had a definite Indian accent?
- how many items do you currently own, and/or how many toys do you and your kids/siblings play with that say either "Made in China" or "Made in Taiwan"?
- how many technical/billing/inquiry calls have you made, where the other person had a definite Indian accent?
lazysmurff
10-22-2004, 12:10 AM
i dont think its any doubt that Asian countries will be the next super power.
unless america can somehow vastly decrease its ridiculous dependancy on oil, our military-industrial complex will crumble.
unless america can somehow vastly decrease its ridiculous dependancy on oil, our military-industrial complex will crumble.
dayna240sx
10-22-2004, 12:18 AM
I definatly think China will be the next super power country.
tenguzero
10-22-2004, 12:47 AM
unless america can somehow vastly decrease its ridiculous dependancy on oil, our military-industrial complex will crumble.
That is precisely the point I try to drive home to people when discussions of American policy arise. The fact is oil, like every major fuel before it, has reached the peak of its usefulness. It's a dinosaur who's extinction we just can't seem recognize. In the past, it's been a very important player in our own growth as a country, but the days of the Industrial and Automotive revolutions have passed. The next step is to advance research into the realms of alternative fuels, and in this respect, America is really dragging its feet. Between the current administration's pro-oil energy bills, and the previous administration's unfortunate reluctance to advance alternative fuel research themselves (yes, the Clinton administraton was just as guilty) this country has, in my opinion, handicapped itself by relying on a crude fossil fuels that are really not complimentary to the new techno/bio revolution. Meanwhile, Asian powers seem to embrace this marriage wholeheartedly, taking great strides in advancing their own knowledge of alternative/bio fuels, while at the same time drastically reducing their dependence on crude oil. The path that the U.S. is following is indeed strikingly similar to that of other great empires of the past, whether they be Rome, or, like the article references, England in the waning days of its dominance. Our problem, is that we're getting to bogged down in micro-managing our own interests around the globe, and we're losing sight of the importance of our own stability and growth. Everytime I examine trends like these (and I can't stress this enough) I'm taken aback by how seemingly narrow and predictable the course of our country is laying out in front of us. We've rested on our laurels far too long and it's time we hurdle ourselves back into the forefront of advancement, lest we too, like the fossil fuels we depend so heavily on, slowly fall by the wayside, to be replaced by our obviously very industrious, very forward thinking asian counterparts. Today, Japanese scientists are leading the way into robotics and biomedicine. Indian countries are writing new chapters in the book of support-sector growth. Taikonauts are following our lead into space. Tomorrow (if we don't reign in our misguided spending, unstable foreign interests, and curtail our continuing reliance on 20th century commodities) we'll be following their's.
That is precisely the point I try to drive home to people when discussions of American policy arise. The fact is oil, like every major fuel before it, has reached the peak of its usefulness. It's a dinosaur who's extinction we just can't seem recognize. In the past, it's been a very important player in our own growth as a country, but the days of the Industrial and Automotive revolutions have passed. The next step is to advance research into the realms of alternative fuels, and in this respect, America is really dragging its feet. Between the current administration's pro-oil energy bills, and the previous administration's unfortunate reluctance to advance alternative fuel research themselves (yes, the Clinton administraton was just as guilty) this country has, in my opinion, handicapped itself by relying on a crude fossil fuels that are really not complimentary to the new techno/bio revolution. Meanwhile, Asian powers seem to embrace this marriage wholeheartedly, taking great strides in advancing their own knowledge of alternative/bio fuels, while at the same time drastically reducing their dependence on crude oil. The path that the U.S. is following is indeed strikingly similar to that of other great empires of the past, whether they be Rome, or, like the article references, England in the waning days of its dominance. Our problem, is that we're getting to bogged down in micro-managing our own interests around the globe, and we're losing sight of the importance of our own stability and growth. Everytime I examine trends like these (and I can't stress this enough) I'm taken aback by how seemingly narrow and predictable the course of our country is laying out in front of us. We've rested on our laurels far too long and it's time we hurdle ourselves back into the forefront of advancement, lest we too, like the fossil fuels we depend so heavily on, slowly fall by the wayside, to be replaced by our obviously very industrious, very forward thinking asian counterparts. Today, Japanese scientists are leading the way into robotics and biomedicine. Indian countries are writing new chapters in the book of support-sector growth. Taikonauts are following our lead into space. Tomorrow (if we don't reign in our misguided spending, unstable foreign interests, and curtail our continuing reliance on 20th century commodities) we'll be following their's.
YogsVR4
10-23-2004, 11:33 AM
China and India have and have had a long way to go to get to where they are. Though I cannot predict accurately where the point will be, but their growth is causing major political issues within the country. Though Shanghai, Hong Kong and other major cities in China are world class, the country side remains fully third world. First hand experience - last spring when my wife was over there for a month - so I'm not tracking down links right now.
Its rapidly comeing down the 'to far to fast' path. It would fantastic for everyone if both of those billion population countries could become a world class economy. The more there are the better it is for everyone. However, the imbalance of government investment in the large cities is going to be a major upheaval in both countries in the next few decades.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Its rapidly comeing down the 'to far to fast' path. It would fantastic for everyone if both of those billion population countries could become a world class economy. The more there are the better it is for everyone. However, the imbalance of government investment in the large cities is going to be a major upheaval in both countries in the next few decades.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
carrrnuttt
10-23-2004, 12:19 PM
...the country side remains fully third world.
I actually see this as an advantage.
Instead of their industrial machines relying on cooperation from third-world countries for natural resources, and cheap, basic-labor, they have their own, internal 'third world' to exploit - lessening their dependence on outside help - unlike us.
This, I think makes their growth even more deceptive, as they have full, open-trade with themselves, and financial transactions are subject to less query, not-to-mention stays in-country.
They can also survive with little help from the OPEC nations, as their industries and cities have learned to live without much dependence on gas-powered commutes - they are a nation of bicycle-riders - especially China.
I actually see this as an advantage.
Instead of their industrial machines relying on cooperation from third-world countries for natural resources, and cheap, basic-labor, they have their own, internal 'third world' to exploit - lessening their dependence on outside help - unlike us.
This, I think makes their growth even more deceptive, as they have full, open-trade with themselves, and financial transactions are subject to less query, not-to-mention stays in-country.
They can also survive with little help from the OPEC nations, as their industries and cities have learned to live without much dependence on gas-powered commutes - they are a nation of bicycle-riders - especially China.
YogsVR4
10-23-2004, 03:37 PM
They only rode bikes because they didn't have the bucks for cars. Thats changing in a big big way. You should see the streets of Shanghai sometime - its like NY but only one in a thousand actually pay any attention to the driving laws. Pedestrians beware.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025